us shootings and uk mental laws

in the UK the goverment wants to change the law where people with mental problems can be locked up or have restrictions placed on them even if they havent commited a crime

bbc
The government's Mental Health Bill strikes the "right balance" between patient safeguards and protecting the public, the health secretary has said.
Patricia Hewitt told the Commons it was "essential" to ensure discharged patients continued taking medication.

The bill, which will allow people to be held against their will even if they have not committed a crime, has been attacked by the Tories as "punitive".

They and the Lib Dems say the plan would stop sufferers seeking help.

will they take this opertunity and use what has happend in the US to justify their actions against people that arent mentaly fit in the UK?

[edit on 19-4-2007 by bodrul]

nope,
remember we have the toughest gun laws in the world and the shooting took place in the United States, not the United Kingdom.

Originally posted by infinite
nope,
remember we have the toughest gun laws in the world and the shooting took place in the United States, not the United Kingdom.

it doesnt generaly have to br related to guns (they can be picked on the streats easily)
anyting can be used as a weapon (well most things)

people dont just use guns to attack people

but still,
the events happened in the United States. We are not a State of the Union, or a commonwealth of the United States.

They couldnt introduce new laws anyways could they? Would it not be against the European Human Rights, that we are signed up to.......

While I see what the original poster is gettin at...... What happens over in the US affects us in the Uk also....... Alot of MP's would not go for this, would be political suicide if they agreed to this...So no do not think the Uk gov will use thwat happened over in the US as a basis to introduce this....

And anyways although there is ban on guns over here in the UK... They are still murders involving guns and most recently knifes.... Sooo banning things such as guns ect, sometimes does not work.

sj are you under the impression that people with severe mental health problems that might be a danger to themselves or the community around them cannot be institutionalised?
Or is it that you think private gun ownership is banned by the EU?

Cos either way if you are you are mistaken.

There is a lot of nonsense talked about 'human rights' and what the human rights act actually means - a lot of it stemming from the kind of myth in certain quarters that reckons a particular version or view of an individuals 'human rights' is prime before all other considerations.

The saddest thing I saw in relation to this entire sad tale was the gun lobby in the US saying it would never have happened if the school had not been 'a gun free zone' and that the students could have defended themselves.

In other words they claim that the solution to gun problems = add more guns, even in schools.

Unbelievable.

Just because someone may look like that their are a danger to the public, institutionalizing them without proof, is against our human rights...

That is the new laws the Gov wants introduce....... Jail someone who might look like they are a dangerr to the pujblic... with or without proof.....

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Has all of that been thrown out the window?

An anyways i was responding to what the original posted asked... Would the shootings over there affect the laws over here. And I am saying no it should not affect us over here.

And I was not refferring to gujns being banned by the EU, I was meaning Guns being banned by the UK. The ban has not stopped people from using guns has it.....

Bodrul, all the Goverment is doing is backtracking on what was done previously. It was called care in the community where mentaly ill persons were chucked out of various institutions due to cut backs.

The result of this action led to a number of persons being murdered by the above. These people should never have been allowed out into the public domain in the first place so now due to the potential risk from such persons the Goverment is putting control measures in place to deal with the problem.

Someone please, lets have the definition of "Normal"

I guess i'm high risk, i take prozac and it works very well for me. Would that classify me as mentally unbalanced?

One reason the sales of such medications have gone up is the state of affairs in the world. Some are finding it hard to cope- sales went waaaay up after 9/11 and will continue to go up until we have some normalcy in the world. Will that be soon or will it be after we have all been classified with a big red stamp across our foreheads for finding it hard to cope?

I dont see how Prozac can help one person and make another go on a killing spree.

Anyway, to whoever said this happened in America and not in the UK, we seem to be working hand in hand for some reason on this and everything else in this war and we seem to be "one" when anything happens either here or there.

Enough rambling.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Just because someone may look like that their are a danger to the public, institutionalizing them without proof, is against our human rights...

- ....and if that was all this involved you might even be right.

But of course it would not be either 'common' nor done without a system of professional opinion, review and appeal.

The idea that 'politicians' of any colour would be wholly responsible for this is simply not true.

Equally untrue is the myth that people can be locked away forever on the grounds of mental ill health and that will be the end of them as far as the outside world is concerned.

A few publicised case does not a 'normality' make.

The health professionals involved would never go along with it and there simply isn't the funding for this kind of scary British 'Gulag' some want to try and turn this proposal into.

The ultimate irony in this is that the ECHR would, via the European Court, be the ultimate court to take such obviously (if the myths were true) unlawful measures to.

Now that the UK has made her own laws subject to the ECHR......which was devised by the UK as part of the reasonable checks and balances 'we' (once, in the case of some) thought made for excellent law.....we have (additional) protection(s) against (any such) 'political' law some seem so keen to imagine, in fact.

That is the new laws the Gov wants introduce....... Jail someone who might look like they are a dangerr to the pujblic... with or without proof.....

- Well, let's be honest sj, it only looks that way to those who either want it to and who know little about how things work or those of a particular political persuasion who want to pretend it might work that way.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

- What happened to the recognised potential threat to themselves, several Drs opinions, Police reports of disturbed behaviour and the rest of the community?

....and review and appeal (both medical and legal)?

The ban has not stopped people from using guns has it.....

- Clearly the ban has not stopped everyone using guns, of course.
But it has reduced the number of guns in our society and is surely a major contribution to the relatively low levels of overall gun crime we have in the UK.

'Add (a vast amount of) more guns' as a means to help stop gun crime IMO is, quite simply, insane.
We have just gotten rid of most of the damned things, bringing them back to the general public would lead to an wholly avoidable carnage.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Bodrul, all the Goverment is doing is backtracking on what was done previously. It was called care in the community where mentaly ill persons were chucked out of various institutions due to cut backs.

- That was the last tory gov mm.

It was the last tory gov that closed and sold off the old institutions and their grounds.

You might say this lot could or should have done more or better sooner but it is hard to entirely reconstruct a system where large parts of the infrastructure were wiped out entirely.


[edit on 23-4-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by dgtempe
Someone please, lets have the definition of "Normal"

I guess i'm high risk, i take prozac and it works very well for me. Would that classify me as mentally unbalanced?

I dont see how Prozac can help one person and make another go on a killing spree.

Hello, to clarify, for some people with Bipolar Mood disorder, SSRI`s can indeed increase manic phase intensity, and therefore heighten dangers to the patient and sometimes public too. Many people do not receive a coorect diagnosis for years, and the most response from doctors is to try them on SSRI`s first. I have some personal experience of this, I am BP and was on Prozac for a year. I ended up in the Police station 3 times that year, and only in retrospect realise why. There are many examples of this. Don`t mean to freak you out though.

Also, on the implications of the "Mental Capacity Bill":
1)Many people will benefit from this as before, once someone had bin found incapable of making decisions(mentally ill, dementia, stroke victims, Learning disabilities etc.)EVERY decision was automatically made for them after this point. NOW their ability to make decisions must be assessed on a decision by decision basis, before this right is taken away from them.
(this even includes getting dressed, spending money. Everything really, including their treatment) Making a decision that seems irrational is no grounds for saying that someone has lost "Mental Capacity" either.

2)People can now make an Advanced Directive while in a Capable state in regard to what treatment they wish to receive or not(including to refuse life saving and other treatments) and decisions they wish to make in the future, that applies and safeguard their wishes should they become incapable at any point.

3)If somebody has no-one to act on their behalf should they become incaple, an Idependent Mental Capacity Advocate will be automatically assigned to safeguard their wishes and "Best Interests"

4)EVERY decision made for an incapable person must be assessed and shown to be in the clients/patients best interests, including that that person was given every chance to make that decision themselves first and that their wishes were taken into account.

5) There was a case in which the UK Govt. got taken to the European Court of Human Rights and lost, when a person had been forcibly medicated and restrained by healthcare workers.

For many people(est. 6million) this legislation will safeguard their wishes, although I do accept that some people may be forced to take Medicines against their will if deemed a possible risk to society(Yes, who decides?!). There are concerns about this and it is a difficult area to legislate. Many charities have shown concerns, and I`m not sure personally that their can be a perfect solution to balancing individuals and societies needs. The ex head of the mental health charity MIND is now sitting in the House of Lords and so will hopefully provide a check to this govts. sometimes knee-jerk policy decisions.

More info, search for Bournewood proposals. I can`t ref the ECHR vs, Govt, case atm, will seek to do so.

Guns are cheap in this country, but bullets are expensive, by the way

'Add (a vast amount of) more guns' as a means to help stop gun crime IMO is, quite simply, insane.

Looks at the amount of killings that have happened over the past few weeks in the UK (only not the us), so Much for some ban which has done nothing to deterr people hellbent on killing others...

That is what I was getting @... How many times do we need to have another dunblane massacre here inthe UK before we all do something about it.....

Too many innocent lives are being lost... And something needs to be done....

Well, let's be honest sj, it only looks that way to those who either want it to and who know little about how things work or those of a particular political persuasion who want to pretend it might work that way.

Looks morelike political browny points to me, imprisoning or institusalising someone based on that they look like they are off their nutter is wrong... or if they look like they are going to harm someone is wrong also.... until you have proof then, the Gov or any GOV has no right to detain anyone based on face value....without due process....

[edit on 23-4-2007 by spencerjohnstone]

sure, but it`s an improvement actually IMO. Gun and knife crime in the UK has apparently steadily fallen over the last twenty years, despite the Hype. will find some figures, hopefully.....

sure, but it`s an improvement actually IMO. Gun and knife crime in the UK has apparently steadily fallen over the last twenty years, despite the Hype. will find some figures, hopefully.....

Hype ??????????????

What hype

You cannot be really saying all those killing that have been happening over the past few weeks is all just hype?

15 Year Old Stabbed

Here is one link to a 15 year old girl, who was stabbed by a 16 year old boy...

SOURCE

A guy shot in the arm during a fight somewhere in england... There loadsmore so much for there being an improvement...

And btw I do not think tha families of those people who have been killed over the past few weeks would call it hype either....



[edit on 23-4-2007 by spencerjohnstone]

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Looks at the amount of killings that have happened over the past few weeks in the UK (only not the us), so Much for some ban which has done nothing to deterr people hellbent on killing others.

- I don't recall anyone saying the gun ban would bring us all a state of perfection in this.

Just because there are periodic incidents does not mean that the ban is worthless or has done nothing.

The facts are that we still have a low rate of gun crime in the UK.

How many times do we need to have another dunblane massacre here inthe UK before we all do something about it.

- What other "Dunblane"?

Too many innocent lives are being lost.

- That I do agree with......but it does not mean that the effective efforts to date have all been for nothing.

Very few Britons will ever encounter 'gun crime', it may not be a perfect world here but we are fortunate to live in one of the globe's more peaceable countries.

And something needs to be done.

- That's fine and all, but, when the 'something must be done' calls become a blind and irrational rant and begin to drown out the truth of the situation so much so that some start to refuse to even consider the facts and a type of fact-free hysteria takes over (egged on by those who would cynically attempt to exploit suchworries) then no, something (anything?) must not just be done, that way lies knee-jerk, crass self-serving populism, unreason and bad decision making.

Looks morelike political browny points to me

- I suspect that is telling us more about you then sj.

imprisoning or institusalising someone based on that they look like they are off their nutter is wrong... or if they look like they are going to harm someone is wrong also.... until you have proof then, the Gov or any GOV has no right to detain anyone based on face value....without due process....

- ......and just where does this idea that there would be no formal professional proceedures or any kind of "due process" (including professional review and legal appeal) come from then?

What on earth makes you think they would not exist (especially in today's British legal situation which includes the incorporation of the ECHR, something you yourself mentioned earlier)!?


[edit on 23-4-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

What I meant was that the Mental Health laws have been improved, IMO.
I am not excusing Gun crime or any violent crime in any way. All this negative media attention MAY WELL deter the Mentally different from seeking help. I agree with you on that. None of the media is reporting the facts, however, and gun crime in this country is more sub-cultural than related to celebritism/copycatism/mindcontrollism and legislation.