[Newsbot]

Title: 'Angel of Woolwich' Ingrid Loyau-Kennett detained under Mental Health Act
Category: Strange
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2014-09-05 00:59:09

[N_Fiddledog]

She said politically incorrect stuff so she got locked up as insane.

Gee...why does that sound so familiar?

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

She said politically incorrect stuff so she got locked up as insane.

Gee...why does that sound so familiar?

Did that happen to you again?

[Xort]

1984 was a cautionary tale, not a how to guide.

"Police have only stated that inquiries are ongoing following an allegation of verbal racial abuse at the store. No one has been arrested or spoken to."

I guess being detained by the Ministry of Truth, sorry under the Mental Health Act isn't technically being arrested.

I can't wait for mental hygiene checkups.

[andyt]

Until proven otherwise, I'm going to go with the assumption that Britain has the same sort of legal protections for people detained under the mental health act as we do. That means that the psychiatrist examining her will determine if she's just pissed off and racist or has a mental health problem. I'm further going to guess that the story we read here isn't the whole story, that there were reasons other than racist cant that she was detained. Otherwise, she might have been charged with causing a disturbance if she refused to leave the premises when asked.

$1:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended)
This Act came into force on 30 September 1998 and created a number of specific offences of racially aggravated crime, based on offences of wounding, assault, damage, harassment and threatening/abusive behaviour. Monitoring had indicated that these types of crime were those most commonly experienced by victims of racial violence or harassment.

The Act was amended by the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, which came into effect on 14 December 2001. It extended the scope of the Crime and Disorder Act by creating new specific religiously aggravated offences and applying the same sentencing duty to all other offences where there is evidence of religious aggravation.

The Act was amended further by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which came into effect on 25 November 2012. It created new specific offences of stalking and it also created racially and religiously aggravated versions of these offences.

Sounds like they could have gone after her criminally if they were really out to get her.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Until proven otherwise, I'm going to go with the assumption that Britain has the same sort of legal protections for people detained under the mental health act as we do.

So, "none" in other words.

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=83213

[andyt]

Not sure I see the relevance to this case and your link.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Not sure I see the relevance to this case and your link.

My comment is in relation to yours. Governments don't give two hoots about mental health, otherwise Police wouldn't have become de facto front line mental health workers instead of Doctors.

[Xort]

andyt andyt:

Until proven otherwise, I'm going to go with the assumption that Britain has the same sort of legal protections for people detained under the mental health act as we do. That means that the psychiatrist examining her will determine if she's just pissed off and racist or has a mental health problem.

And make the doctor into judge and jury able to detain someone forever because being racist is a mental health problem, at least in Europe.

$1:

I'm further going to guess that the story we read here isn't the whole story, that there were reasons other than racist cant that she was detained. Otherwise, she might have been charged with causing a disturbance if she refused to leave the premises when asked.

I think we have the full story, say something racist and you go to jail in the UK. Either real jail with a legal punishment or detainment in a state mental health facility.

$1:

Sounds like they could have gone after her criminally if they were really out to get her.

Because saying someone shouldn't be in your nation is grounds to be detained and forced to submit to a mental health evaluation.

"Immigrants from X nation shouldn't be allowed in my nation." Should not equal being detained, for any amount of time however short or long. More so on a faked up claim of mental health.

Bad laws, bad legal actions ruin the positive aspects of the rule of law.

[andyt]

fair enough. My comment was that I doubt this was some sinister scheme by the govt to go after this woman. Instead she probably showed sings of mental problems, aside from her racist rant, or they would have either let her go or charged her criminally.

While police should definitely be better trained in dealing with the mentally ill, even have mental health workers on their teams, I'm not sure if there's a crazy man with a sword running around, a psychiatrist dragging out his couch to do talk therapy with him would be the proper response. Most psychiatry these days is giving drugs anyway, and an armed, agitated, person can be difficult to administer drugs to. There will always be incidents where an armed response is necessary. Especially because very agitated people can be hard to bring down with tasers or beanbags. They can be massively strong and feel no pain in that state.

What's needed aren't so much frontline mental health people, as backline ones that provide proper care, and the facilities where that care can be provided, instead of just shoving people back on the street. Thing is, that costs money. Who wants to pay taxes for that when there's so many toys that must be bought instead. Taxes are bad, and if a few crazy people get shot because we don't want to spend the money on them, that's just the price they we have to pay, I guess.

[N_Fiddledog]

Those who forget the lessons of history, and all that...

$1:

Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union


In the Soviet Union, a systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place[1] and was based on the interpretation of political dissent as a psychiatric problem.[2] It was called "psychopathological mechanisms" of dissent.[3]

During the leadership of General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, psychiatry was used as a tool to eliminate political opponents ("dissidents") who openly expressed beliefs that contradicted official dogma.[4] The term "philosophical intoxication" was widely used to diagnose mental disorders in cases where people disagreed with leaders and made them the target of criticism that used the writings by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin.[5] Article 58-10 of the Stalin Criminal Code—which as Article 70 had been shifted into the RSFSR Criminal Code of 1962—and Article 190-1 of the RSFSR Criminal Code along with the system of diagnosing mental illness, developed by academician Andrei Snezhnevsky, created the very preconditions under which non-standard beliefs could easily be transformed into a criminal case, and it, in its turn, into a psychiatric diagnosis.[6] Anti-Soviet political behavior, in particular, being outspoken in opposition to the authorities, demonstrating for reform, writing books were defined in some persons as being simultaneously a criminal act (e.g., violation of Articles 70 or 190-1), a symptom (e.g., "delusion of reformism"), and a diagnosis (e.g., "sluggish schizophrenia").[7] Within the boundaries of the diagnostic category, the symptoms of pessimism, poor social adaptation and conflict with authorities were themselves sufficient for a formal diagnosis of "sluggish schizophrenia."[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... viet_Union