Proof please.

Have a Google. Have a read of the numerous articles written by experts in mental health issues/personality disorders. The mostly state that Moat was mentally ill. I think we can safely say, in this case, that the consensus of expert analysis and opinion can be taken as fact.

Is the sky blue, or is it merely your opinion that it is blue?

Anyway, I’m pretty sure you know what I’m banging on about, so we’ll leave it there. Besides, I’m off to Southampton now me washing’s finished.

+1 into de-void – thanks for the insight

I just read the story on The Independent, also thought that there is someone (or two) high up in the Police who decided to duck on this one and let the Taser guy take the heat – hope now they are ashamed.

stumpy jon – who had a go at the businessman? I merely pointed out that the defense of him was simply wrong. He knew he was supplying the tazers illegally or should have done and it wasn’t a technical breach of the regulations by any stretch. Nothing to do with noit jumping thru the hoops but he supplyed a weapon that was not lisenced to be used.

Is the sky blue, or is it merely your opinion that it is blue?

It’s more a matter of perception.

Elfinsafety – Member
Have a Google. Have a read of the numerous articles written by experts in mental health issues/personality disorders. The mostly state that Moat was mentally ill.

I can see lots of conjecture, no definitive clinical assessment.

I think we can safely say, in this case, that the consensus of expert analysis and opinion can be taken as fact.

I can’t see any consensus?

Is the sky blue, or is it merely your opinion that it is blue?

No, it’s fact. It’s been proven by scientists. To state something as “fact” you are required to provide proof. Not conjecture.

Anyway, I’m pretty sure you know what I’m banging on about, so we’ll leave it there.

I do, and you’re wrong. Happy to leave it there.

I do, and you’re wrong. Happy to leave it there.

I’m right, but happy to accept that you are wrong. Happy to leave it there. 😉

Elfinsafety – Member

I do, and you’re wrong. Happy to leave it there.

Ok then a man who went on a rampage killing and injuring others isn’t mentally ill. Fact.

Will that do yer?

Nope, cos that’s wrong. I wasn’t arguing that one or the other of you were right or wrong, I was saying both of you arguing he was/wasn’t a mentalist were wrong as nothing had been proven. It’s just you took up the gauntlet whereas stu didn’t.

Also, you used the word “fact” when there is clearly no “fact” when relating to the mental health of Raoul Moat.

Whatever.

Bored now, bye!

errr… A glaring fact that everyone seems to have overlooked is that the businessman geezer topped hisself..

Now… correct me if I’m wrong… but unless you’re an honourable ancient Japanese fella.. (or hormonal Japanese exam student) then you have to be in a pretty bad place indeed to murder yourself right..?

Above and waaaaay beyond poor business practice and feelings of repressed guilt..?

I decided against reading too much of this thread as it’s very likely just another STW pissing match.. but just thought it might be useful (?) to add my twopenceworth..

Elfinsafety – Member
Whatever.

Bored now, bye!

WIN!! 😀

*bodypops*

stumpyjon – Member

…. the usual knee jerk reaction from some on here in having a go at a business man whilst defending a murderous gunman …………people on here have gone for the firm and owner in a a disproportionate and uninformed way

“Facts” my dear boy ……. “facts”

It isn’t “some on here” who have gone for the firm and owner. And “had a go” at a business man.

If anyone has done that, then it is the Tory Home Secretary Theresa May who has done it.

Are you accusing the Tory Home Secretary of “the usual knee jerk reaction” against a business man ?

…..of going after “the firm and owner in a a disproportionate and uninformed way” ?

Pro-Tect had its licence revoked, not by some punters on STW, but by the Tory Home Secretary.

The title of the thread refers to a “misleading headline”, it seems to me stumpyjon, that you want to mislead everyone over the facts concerning who is accusing who.

Personally, I suspect that the Home Office has a better understanding of whether Pro-Tect complied with the requirements of their license, than some, presumably former banned, member of STW …… even if he was best mates with the firm’s owner.

As far as the ‘mental health’ of those involved is concerned, it is very clear by his suicide, that the Pro-Tect’s director of operations Peter Boatman, was not mentally stable.

And I fail to see how Raoul Moat was in anyway responsible for Peter Boatman’s mental health problems.

And I fail to see how Raoul Moat was in anyway responsible for Peter Boatman’s mental health problems.

No I don’t either, Raoul Moat wasn’t, unfortunately for Peter Boatman his professional cock up conicided with a story the press ran with, you know what I mean Raoul Moat probably contributed to Mr Boatmans demise but he’s not in anyway culpable for that. There’s enough other things to lay at his door without lumping that on him as well.

I’m not particularly defending Pro-Tects actions either, I don’t know anywhere near enough about what they did or the regulations to be able to come to a sensible conclusion on that.

Are you accusing the Tory Home Secretary of “the usual knee jerk reaction” against a business man ?

Not particularly but if the hat fits….. Politicans of all hues aren’t exactly known for being completely fair an impartial in matters like this.

of going after “the firm and owner in a a disproportionate and uninformed way” ?

Nope, you brought that up, never mentionned it in my previous post, again I don’t know what the Home Secretary knows or what they’ve been advised, I was commenting on my impressions on some of the earlier contributions to this thread.

Up to this point politics hadn’t actually been mentionned by anyone 😐

As far as the ‘mental health’ of those involved is concerned, it is very clear by his suicide, that the Pro-Tect’s director of operations Peter Boatman, was not mentally stable.

Again I don’t know the full details but I would have to agree that it’s unlikely someone would take their own life unless there was some sort of underlying problem.

Ernie, I may have been unfair in what I said, I did choose my words fairly carefully though, there’s enough intelligent people on here who can pull a dodgy badly worded argumant to pieces on here after all. It just felt to me that Peter Boatman was getting a right hammering whilst others who were involved in all this (police etc.) seem to be not in the firing line (poor choice of words). It also felt there were more people attempting to defend Raoul Moat than Peter Boatman.

These things are never as black and white as everybody would like. Bit like the whole sorry Raoul Moat saga, yes he was probably let down be the authorities, many people are, few go on to kill indiscriminately. Where’s the personal responsibilty in all this?

Not a thread to be proud of.