The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Thanks for that Brian said:
One of my brothers was sectioned 3 years ago in The Bethlem for 2 months following a suicide attempt.

I attended all of his psyche evaluations. I can tell you that that place was ****ing scary. People screaming and shouting, coming up to me asking for money, my phone, food, cigarettes, etc. (mostly in a pretty threatening manner). It was all too apparent why the word 'bedlam' came into being.

Nobody who doesn't have to be in there would want to go within a mile of it. My brother was no risk to anyone else, but was certainly at risk from other occupants. There was a 3 or 4 day wait in hospital while a space was found for him. It's 1out, 1 in, because these places are overrun, as are the prisons and hospitals.

In her police days, my wife committed 6 officers per day to provide round the clock observation of a minor in hospital, who was a significant threat to herself... because there was nowhere for her to go for 2 weeks. That's 84 working days and a desperately needed bed in a single room...and this is repeated all over the country.

It's a ****ing mess.

The whole system is in crisis. The only surprise is that this type of incident doesn't happen more often.
Click to expand...
Politicians since Thatcher and the introduction of neoliberalism have been primarily concerned with extricating government from responsibility and spending. Reducing the State. The present state of the country is down to this. Along the way central government has continually reduced local government funding and increased their responsibilities. Housing and Mental Health care have probably suffered more than most.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon, paulthewire, littleDinosaurLuke and 1 other person
Vote Burnham, Get Blair!
Simons features front and centre in the exposé book on McSweeney and Starmer 'Get In'.
You must log in or register to see media
 
Spurf said:
Presumably he didn't meet the criteria that's why he was free. The question is, should somebody who has stabbed 3 people on the street be freely walking about. If he was unknown to the authorities then it's understandable, however in this case authority has spoken and they did know him. That implies a dysfunction in the system of care for potentially dangerous individuals.

Personally I think we have too many people locked up for the wrong reasons but surely people who are prone to violently attack random strangers are top of any list of who SHOULD be locked up. Locking up does not have to be a 6 foot cell and bread and water BTW, it can be a caring and pleasant enviroment and IMO opinion that's what it should be. The idea of care in the community has only ever been about saving money and has not been about seriously trying to help people with mental health issues.
Click to expand...
I disagree on almost every point you make here. If we locked up everyone with a mental illness which might cause them to perform a violent attack then there would be hundreds of thousands of people detained pretty much permanently with no hope of ever being released. It would also make it very tempting for the Government to slip in some political prisoners amongst those.
Taking away someone's liberty should be a last resort both for crimes and anything else. That means a small number of violent crimes will happen which is a price we have to pay. In much the same way we could imprison more violent criminals if the criteria for conviction was less onerous than beyond reasonable doubt but that would also lead to more innocent people bring imprisoned.
Your sensible opposition to restricting Jury trials seems entirely opposed to wanting more people locked up on the basis of what a couple of doctors think they might do in the future.
I also think you are wrong about care in the community. Being in a mental health facility is a disaster for most people and the more who can be treated without having to endure that then the better for everyone. The resources applied to mental health need to be massively increased both for inpatients and outpatients though to avoid the current unacceptable position.
But please don't argue that it's a good thing to lock up vulnerable people.
 
PowerSpurs said:
I disagree on almost every point you make here. If we locked up everyone with a mental illness which might cause them to perform a violent attack then there would be hundreds of thousands of people detained pretty much permanently with no hope of ever being released. It would also make it very tempting for the Government to slip in some political prisoners amongst those.
Taking away someone's liberty should be a last resort both for crimes and anything else. That means a small number of violent crimes will happen which is a price we have to pay. In much the same way we could imprison more violent criminals if the criteria for conviction was less onerous than beyond reasonable doubt but that would also lead to more innocent people bring imprisoned.
Your sensible opposition to restricting Jury trials seems entirely opposed to wanting more people locked up on the basis of what a couple of doctors think they might do in the future.
I also think you are wrong about care in the community. Being in a mental health facility is a disaster for most people and the more who can be treated without having to endure that then the better for everyone. The resources applied to mental health need to be massively increased both for inpatients and outpatients though to avoid the current unacceptable position.
But please don't argue that it's a good thing to lock up vulnerable people.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiments and I am not advocating the kind of care that you and Brian have described. I am also not advocating what happened before Thatcher's changes when people were locked up all of their lives on doctors advice. So where do we go? Do you think the risk of violent people free to wander is an acceptable risk? Can you ignore the reported 400 people killed between 2018 - 2023?
My view expressed doubt about allowing people with known violent actions freedom. That is not to advocate anyone who in the opinion of a doctor MIGHT be violent.

So what do you do? Just throwing money will not help. I have a family member who is a millionaire and he became rich running a large psychiatric hospital, received visits from the now King. Was formerly one of only 3 forensic psychiatrists in the country. These are the people who decided whether people like the Krays should be released or not. It's far from an exact science.

I suspect from your response that you know a lot more about this subject than I do, as Brian certainly does, so I am interested in your ideas/solutions.
 
Spurf said:
I agree with your sentiments and I am not advocating the kind of care that you and Brian have described. I am also not advocating what happened before Thatcher's changes when people were locked up all of their lives on doctors advice. So where do we go? Do you think the risk of violent people free to wander is an acceptable risk? Can you ignore the reported 400 people killed between 2018 - 2023?
My view expressed doubt about allowing people with known violent actions freedom. That is not to advocate anyone who in the opinion of a doctor MIGHT be violent.

So what do you do? Just throwing money will not help. I have a family member who is a millionaire and he became rich running a large psychiatric hospital, received visits from the now King. Was formerly one of only 3 forensic psychiatrists in the country. These are the people who decided whether people like the Krays should be released or not. It's far from an exact science.

I suspect from your response that you know a lot more about this subject than I do, as Brian certainly does, so I am interested in your ideas/solutions.
Click to expand...
I have some background knowledge as my wife was a psychiatric charge nurse at a big London hospital a long while back.
However I don't know any easy solutions. The data isn't readily available but it looks like the rate of violent offending by people receiving psychiatric treatment is less than 5% and that the reoffending rate is similar to those who are not receiving treatment. Only about 10% of violent crimes and homicides are done by people with severe mental illness and only half of those were found to be related to their mental health.
So I think that while being harsher about locking up mentally ill people will reduce offence rates that would definitely be at the expense of having a lot of people who would never offend permanently locked away.
Most people convicted of violent offences who are not mentally ill don't reoffend but it seems about 30% do so in principle if there was a whole life sentence for any violent attack then a lot fewer violent people would be walking the streets. I don't think you would advocate that as a response so why treat mentally ill people worse.
 
Left on the Shelf said:
Vote Burnham, Get Blair!
Simons features front and centre in the exposé book on McSweeney and Starmer 'Get In'.
You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...
There is a theory that the plan is for Burnham to stand, only for Deform to win

Okay, first point: if LINO's plan is to actively hope that they lose a seat, then somebody needs to enter head office with a flamethrower

Secondly, interesting we're supposed to forget that Gorton & Denton was supposed to be a coronation for Deform a few months ago...and instead what we got was Matt Goodwin being the exact opposite
 
Isn’t the test for detaining people under the MHA whether they are a danger to themselves or others? So those who should be detained are the dangerous - particularly those assessed as being violent. Most people with mental health problems wouldn’t fall into this category.
And detention is usually for 28 days, I think, and therefore would have to be reassessed after that period. There are checks and balances, so you would hope those who need to be detained are detained and those who don’t, aren’t.
But I do question how efficient the system is without adequate funding. The answer from the examples we’re discussing is that violent mentally ill people do slip through the net.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Isn’t the test for detaining people under the MHA whether they are a danger to themselves or others? So those who should be detained are the dangerous - particularly those assessed as being violent. Most people with mental health problems wouldn’t fall into this category.
And detention is usually for 28 days, I think, and therefore would have to be reassessed after that period. There are checks and balances, so you would hope those who need to be detained are detained and those who don’t, aren’t.
But I do question how efficient the system is without adequate funding. The answer from the examples we’re discussing is that violent mentally ill people do slip through the net.
Click to expand...
No. The net is designed to let people have the benefit of any doubt. If it caught more violent people it would also catch more non-violent ones incorrectly.
 
This is a long and difficult watch, but essential watching and should be a serious concern for the UK population.
The overreach of the Government and Judiciary is frightening - and if you think 'Oh it's ok, I don't care about Gaza and they're just lefty troublemakers', think again! This removal of some of the basic tenets of the right to a fair trial potentially could be used in other circumstances closer to 'your' home!
You must log in or register to see media
 
PowerSpurs said:
No. The net is designed to let people have the benefit of any doubt. If it caught more violent people it would also catch more non-violent ones incorrectly.
Click to expand...
well it is actually are they considered a danger to themselves or others and the decision to detain requires a Mental health professional and 2 doctors to agree .
due to lack of facilities only the most serious cases will be detained
 
Solid Air said:
well it is actually are they considered a danger to themselves or others and the decision to detain requires a Mental health professional and 2 doctors to agree .
due to lack of facilities only the most serious cases will be detained
Click to expand...
Yes but there are two other criteria which must be met and limits on detention time. There is no way that the Golders Green attacker could have been held and I think this is by design. When my wife trained 40 years ago it was necessary that some form of treatment was possible so that for example someone with a personality disorder couldn't be sectioned but the wording on that was changed in 2007. The Act was further changed in 2025 to make it harder to detain people.
I think the current Law is quite liberal and effectively prevents blanket detention which in my mind is a good thing even if some dangerous people remain free.
 
Last edited:
PowerSpurs said:
I have some background knowledge as my wife was a psychiatric charge nurse at a big London hospital a long while back.
However I don't know any easy solutions. The data isn't readily available but it looks like the rate of violent offending by people receiving psychiatric treatment is less than 5% and that the reoffending rate is similar to those who are not receiving treatment. Only about 10% of violent crimes and homicides are done by people with severe mental illness and only half of those were found to be related to their mental health.
So I think that while being harsher about locking up mentally ill people will reduce offence rates that would definitely be at the expense of having a lot of people who would never offend permanently locked away.
Most people convicted of violent offences who are not mentally ill don't reoffend but it seems about 30% do so in principle if there was a whole life sentence for any violent attack then a lot fewer violent people would be walking the streets. I don't think you would advocate that as a response so why treat mentally ill people worse.
Click to expand...
The Psychiatrist in my family did at one time have to move house because he was under threat from a person he helped to convict for murder. I remember asking him why did you go into this branch of medicine? His reply; simple, money. As forecast, by him, he earnt millions. Of course the medics on the front line were by and large not very well paid in comparison. There is lots of money in mental health but as is usual in this neoliberal society (sorry system, 'No such thing as society' M. Thatcher) the money is creamed off by those at the top.

You and Brian have clearly highlighted how complex and problematic the question of detaining mental health patients is, so in hindsight I accept that my initial comment on the subject of the attacker was too simplistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PowerSpurs
Has anybody thought of sitting down the prominent voices on the right and reading their tweets back to them?

All while sitting them under a giant billboard with the dictionary deifnition of radicalisation?

You must log in or register to see images
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back