Reasons why Bamber cycled to & from WHF.

[guest29835]

In your determination to label me, and my informant, liars, you are making some wild and extravagent claims. Having never been taken into custody, I have no idea what is the procedure. You appear to be totally au fait with it. Unless, of course, you just happened to be there when Jeremy was taken in? Are you trying to say that a desk clerk or lowly duty PC has the authority to say whether or not a prisoner is fit for interview. I imagine Jeremy was seen fit for interview AFTER assessment. It wouldn't take a professional, practiced at it, to come to a conclusion.

I imagine you're using the fact that I have no idea what the psychiatrists name is -and I can think of no good reason why I should have been told, or why I should have asked. It's tantamount to calling someone a liar, which is exactly what you're using it to do.

I didn't lie. All the claims made were yours. I never disagreed -as shown in the except from one of your pms to me- and from what your sideswipes at Wilkes suggest you're attempting to prove him wrong by twisting what I've said.

From the levels you've dragged this forum down to since your arrival, I see a particularly nasty and twisted individual. The person who's hurling out insults at everyone who disagrees with him is VERY different from the person who hid behing the mask of good manners, open mindedness, and conviviality when they first joined.

In complete fairness to you - I do try to be fair - I must grant the possibility that Jeremy was seen by a psychiatrist early on and it could be that the fact is buried in some book or statement somewhere and I've just forgotten it.  But for the reasons given above, it does seem rather unlikely and I draw my conclusions accordingly, allowing that I cannot prove your motives, I can only have suspicions.  Anyway, we know it was not the defence psychiatrist, so even if the core account is true, your spin on it falls down.

Now, you started the accusations on this thread Jane.  I did try to correct you, and you persisted.  So what are we to conclude?  Who is the real villain here?  I'm only human.  I genuinely didn't intend for us to fall out, and I am sure if this was unpicked by a neutral arbiter, we'd find fault on both sides, but that's the way it is. 

You are right: I am quite au fait with the law and police procedures, probably more so than most professional lawyers.  Let's say I am self-educated in the matter, due to my own mischief and misdeeds, and I seem to have a natural bent towards cross-examining and cornering people verbally, as you've discovered to your embarrassment.  I'm certainly not a barrister, still less a Queen's Counsel, but maybe I should have been one?  Perhaps I'm not clever enough.  I just don't appreciate being called bogus when I'm not, and for your information, the initials QC are of personal meaning to me and relate to somebody close to me who died - which is partly why I became rather upset.  I have feelings and it brought it all back.  I still think some things should be taken personally and I think you were quite wrong to start an argument with me and goad me.

I think we should end this thread now.  We all lie.  I have lied in the past.  You could call me a liar. Nobody is perfect.

[lookout]

You're a cop then QC ?

[guest29835]

You're a cop then QC ?

No. I was the opposite.  Anyway, can we change the subject?  Better still, end the thread?  I think the discussion is exhausted now.  I take no pleasure in calling somebody a liar, but I will defend myself and I will defend a man in prison who can't speak for himself, regardless of what he has done.

I do not believe Jeremy is a psychopath, and I know that nobody has produced serious evidence that he is.  Even if he did commit this terrible crime - which by the way, is unforgivable - it doesn't follow necessarily that he is a psychopath.  Anybody who disputes that can start a threat, and they better have proper evidence, not common gossip from some idiot.

[Caroline]

No. I was the opposite.  Anyway, can we change the subject?  Better still, end the thread?  I think the discussion is exhausted now.  I take no pleasure in calling somebody a liar, but I will defend myself and I will defend a man in prison who can't speak for himself, regardless of what he has done.

I do not believe Jeremy is a psychopath, and I know that nobody has produced serious evidence that he is.  Even if he did commit this terrible crime - which by the way, is unforgivable - it doesn't follow necessarily that he is a psychopath.  Anybody who disputes that can start a threat, and they better have proper evidence, not common gossip from some idiot.

I do believe he's a psychopath - anyone who did what he did has to be. You believe he isn't, I believe he is. It's an opinion at the end of the day.

[Jane]

In complete fairness to you - I do try to be fair - I must grant the possibility that Jeremy was seen by a psychiatrist early on and it could be that the fact is buried in some book or statement somewhere and I've just forgotten it.  But for the reasons given above, it does seem rather unlikely and I draw my conclusions accordingly, allowing that I cannot prove your motives, I can only have suspicions.  Anyway, we know it was not the defence psychiatrist, so even if the core account is true, your spin on it falls down.

Now, you started the accusations on this thread Jane.  I did try to correct you, and you persisted.  So what are we to conclude?  Who is the real villain here?  I'm only human.  I genuinely didn't intend for us to fall out, and I am sure if this was unpicked by a neutral arbiter, we'd find fault on both sides, but that's the way it is. 

You are right: I am quite au fait with the law and police procedures, probably more so than most professional lawyers.  Let's say I am self-educated in the matter, due to my own mischief and misdeeds, and I seem to have a natural bent towards cross-examining and cornering people verbally, as you've discovered to your embarrassment.  I'm certainly not a barrister, still less a Queen's Counsel, but maybe I should have been one?  Perhaps I'm not clever enough.  I just don't appreciate being called bogus when I'm not, and for your information, the initials QC are of personal meaning to me and relate to somebody close to me who died - which is partly why I became rather upset.  I have feelings and it brought it all back.  I still think some things should be taken personally and I think you were quite wrong to start an argument with me and goad me.

I think we should end this thread now.  We all lie.  I have lied in the past.  You could call me a liar. Nobody is perfect.

So it seems my instincts are correct and the persona you presented is indeed ENTIRELY bogus, through and through. How DARE you say you tried to correct me. Any suspicions you have of deviousness on my part are projections of your own. This post is nothing but you back-tracking and trying to wheedle your way out of a situation ENTIRELY of your own making. It makes you a coward, as well as a liar -however, I will concede that you may have had some help in arriving at some of your conclusions about me and my motives.

You may have believed you were being clever, but far from embarrassing me -and I'm certain that it amused you to think you were- the more distasteful became your line of questioning, the more I recognized that you were twisting what I'd said. In a different life, who knows, you may have been a barrister, but you're right. In this life, you're not clever enough.

I am sincerely sorry that QC, which seems to mean a lot to you, has caused you pain. Perhaps it was unwise to use it in this context. I don't accept that it was I who started an argument, but if you believe I did, you had a choice about whether or not to enter into it. One cannot argue alone.

You are perfectly correct in that this should be bought to a close, and this WILL be my last word on it. This forum has been bought very low, although responsibility for cannot all be laid at your feet. I agree that everyone lies from time to time. You are not alone in it.

[guest29835]

So it seems my instincts are correct and the persona you presented is indeed ENTIRELY bogus, through and through. How DARE you say you tried to correct me. Any suspicions you have of deviousness on my part are projections of your own. This post is nothing but you back-tracking and trying to wheedle your way out of a situation ENTIRELY of your own making. It makes you a coward, as well as a liar -however, I will concede that you may have had some help in arriving at some of your conclusions about me and my motives.

You may have believed you were being clever, but far from embarrassing me -and I'm certain that it amused you to think you were- the more distasteful became your line of questioning, the more I recognized that you were twisting what I'd said. In a different life, who knows, you may have been a barrister, but you're right. In this life, you're not clever enough.

I am sincerely sorry that QC, which seems to mean a lot to you, has caused you pain. Perhaps it was unwise to use it in this context. I don't accept that it was I who started an argument, but if you believe I did, you had a choice about whether or not to enter into it. One cannot argue alone.

You are perfectly correct in that this should be bought to a close, and this WILL be my last word on it. This forum has been bought very low, although responsibility for cannot all be laid at your feet. I agree that everyone lies from time to time. You are not alone in it.

Sorry but this is just a lot of self-serving codswallop.

There is nothing bogus at all about my persona on here.  I have been completely truthful about myself in every particular, right from the start.

You are quite simply a liar and a troublemaker and you just can't help yourself.  It just goes on and on with you.  Post after post you stir up nonsense.  You've been doing it for years.  I'm just the latest victim. 

You clearly lied about the psychiatrist.  Even if the core story is true - it's unlikely to be, but let's be generous to you - you've put a dishonest spin on it.  You know you have.

When are you going to stop this?  It's embarrassing.

[guest7363]

Evening everybody. I haven’t posted for some time due to various commitments but have been following from a far. Just reading through this thread, seems a little disappointing that Jeremy Bamber seems to have been relegated to about 4th or 5th priority behind playground infighting!

When I get chance, would be interested to post up on causal affects of crime and looking into Social Harm outcomes and Zemiology as advocated by Hillyard, Pemberton et al and the relation they could have to the JB case.

For what it’s worth. Pete (LLB, LPC, MSc, PhD (ongoing!)

Hi Pete, I don’t know a lot about that stuff, but I will have a go with Caroline 👍. Start a thread mate and I will read up on it

[guest29835]

I do believe he's a psychopath - anyone who did what he did has to be. You believe he isn't, I believe he is. It's an opinion at the end of the day.

Sorry, I must fundamentally disagree.  I should stress at the outset that this is not in itself a pro-defence or pro-prosecution point.  You could, potentially, argue that what I am about to say favours the guilt side.  Depends on how you want to look at it. 

My view is not just an opinion, it's based on the available evidence.  If you have new or different evidence that tells us he is a psychopath, then I will defer to your view and start calling him a psychopath.  Beyond your own opinion, do you have such evidence?  If so, could you please share it with us?

If you are relying entirely on your own opinion that he is a psychopath per se, because of what he has done, then I can understand that because what he is said to have done is absolutely appalling and atrocious, but strictly, it does not make him an actual psychopath.  What it makes him is a 'psycho': a colloquialism harking back to the original meaning of the term psychopath, but of nil or limited clinical significance. 

It is the case that just because somebody commits a mass murder, it does not follow that he or she has an anti-social personality disorder.  If you disagree, could you provide sources or otherwise tell us what your clinical qualifications and experience are in psychiatry, neurology and/or psychology?  Thanks.

I have none whatsoever (other than personal experience), and in this instance I rely on what the experts say, not because I automatically believe experts, but because in this case they are the ones who have direct contact with him and are therefore in a position to offer a considered opinion, based on observations of him over a period of years.  I accept that this is not perfect because custody is an controlled environment in which they won't be able to observe the full range of behaviour, but at the same time, they don't have a vested interest in lying or saying that he is something that he isn't. 

The basic fact is that he has not been, and never has been, diagnosed with a psychiatric illness or an anti-social personality disorder.  To the best of our knowledge, he is not psychologically abnormal, though he may well have other mental health issues due to his confinement. 

[Caroline]

Sorry, I must fundamentally disagree.  I should stress at the outset that this is not in itself a pro-defence or pro-prosecution point.  You could, potentially, argue that what I am about to say favours the guilt side.  Depends on how you want to look at it. 

My view is not just an opinion, it's based on the available evidence.  If you have new or different evidence that tells us he is a psychopath, then I will defer to your view and start calling him a psychopath.  Beyond your own opinion, do you have such evidence?  If so, could you please share it with us?

If you are relying entirely on your own opinion that he is a psychopath per se, because of what he has done, then I can understand that because what he is said to have done is absolutely appalling and atrocious, but strictly, it does not make him an actual psychopath.  What it makes him is a 'psycho': a colloquialism harking back to the original meaning of the term psychopath, but of nil or limited clinical significance. 

It is the case that just because somebody commits a mass murder, it does not follow that he or she has an anti-social personality disorder.  If you disagree, could you provide sources or otherwise tell us what your clinical qualifications and experience are in psychiatry, neurology and/or psychology?  Thanks.

I have none whatsoever (other than personal experience), and in this instance I rely on what the experts say, not because I automatically believe experts, but because in this case they are the ones who have direct contact with him and are therefore in a position to offer a considered opinion, based on observations of him over a period of years.  I accept that this is not perfect because custody is an controlled environment in which they won't be able to observe the full range of behaviour, but at the same time, they don't have a vested interest in lying or saying that he is something that he isn't. 

The basic fact is that he has not been, and never has been, diagnosed with a psychiatric illness or an anti-social personality disorder.  To the best of our knowledge, he is not psychologically abnormal, though he may well have other mental health issues due to his confinement.

He was initially categorised as a psychopath by an 'eminant psychiatrist', you have chosen to just dismiss that out of hand; stating that you have 'reliable' evidence from which to do so (or words to that effect). Just because Wilkes didn't name the psychiatrist, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you have 'reliable evidence' to the contrary, then please post it.

By the way, psychopathy is not a psychiatric illness, it's a personality disorder. Also, when you PM'd me we did discuss this briefly and although you indicated then that you didn't think he was a psychopath, you did state that you though him "a fairly superficial and charming person". The list of traits identified by Hare are;  (I have added a Y next to those traits that I believe the anecdotal evidence supports).

Loquacity / Superficial charm. - Y (You believe him to be this)
Egocentrism / Great feeling of self-worth. - Y
Need for stimulation / Tendency to boredom. Y
Pathological lying. Y
Cunning / Manipulative. Y
Lack of remorse and guilt. Y (if you think he's guilty)
Emotionally shallow. Y
Callous / Lack of empathy. Y
Parasitic lifestyle. Y
Lack of behavioral control. Y
Promiscuous sexual behavior.
Early behavioral problems. Y
Lack of realistic long-term goals. Y
Impulsiveness. Y
Irresponsibility. Y
Inability to accept responsibility for own actions. Y
Several brief marital relations.
Juvenile delinquency. Y
Revocation of conditional release.
Criminal versatility. Y

From what we know about him. he pretty much fits all the criteria IMO. I believe he passed the most recent PCLR because it's pretty easy to work out which questions are going to be measured and  which ones aren't. It's not a great way to test for the disorder. I have a degree in psychology and we all did the test as an exercise. I think we must also take into account the fact that had the results not gone his way, we probably would never have known. The CT are also misleading his followers by trying to pass off 'risk assessments' as as full psychological assessments, which they are not. You indicated that you have been on the wrong side of the law and if you have spent any time at one of Her Majesties B and B's - you will know exactly what the assessments are and they do not include a test for psychopathy annually.   

 

[guest29835]

He was initially categorised as a psychopath by an 'eminant psychiatrist', you have chosen to just dismiss that out of hand; stating that you have 'reliable' evidence from which to do so (or words to that effect). Just because Wilkes didn't name the psychiatrist, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you have 'reliable evidence' to the contrary, then please post it.

No he wasn't.  For one thing, you can't be 'categorised' as such.  Your slovenly language is the give-away here.  You do not know of the subject you speak.  Moreover, the account given in Wilkes' book is unsourced, unreliable and inaccurate.  I know this for a fact. 

By the way, psychopathy is not a psychiatric illness, it's a personality disorder.

Yes, and I make that very point in my own post, which you clearly haven't digested. 

As for the rest of what you say, it's cut-and-paste information, which again is a 'tell' that you lack real knowledge (i.e. experience in the field) and wish to replace it with received wisdom - a classic flaw often present in ignorant arguments.  Marrying up apparent character flaws and personality traits with a list you've found on the internet is hardly the most promising basis for a psychological evaluation.

And before you say that I lack knowledge and experience, yes I do - that is the whole point I am making!  Unlike you, I acknowledge my limitations and I am humble enough to remind people that I don't know things. 

Indeed, I would go further and argue that the whole basis of true knowledge is not knowing.  Your problem is that you get it the wrong way round and start from the premise that you know things you don't, then you fit the facts to what you don't know.  It's no surprise that the end result is inferior.

Sorry but you're wrong and the fact that you say you are 100% sure of Jeremy's guilt is an indication to me that I am conversing with somebody who has crossed the boundary of reason in this matter and is now espousing an article of faith.

I am tempted to close by offering you the floor to say whatever else you like.  It will be of no value because it will not be based on evidence and facts and it is not put forward in a spirit of fairness, but with an agenda.  It's rather like listening to Kerry Daynes, who has never met her subject, tell us that Jeremy had an off-switch during childhood and this stopped him feeling and emoting normally, as if Jeremy is a machine, like Arnie in The Terminator.  I suppose it's proof that credentials are not everything.  Perhaps we should rely on evidence instead, including practitioners who have actually evaluated him?

Some people allow vanity to overtake judgement and forget that learning requires humility in the first place.

[lookout]

There's only an MRI scan that can pin-point the brain of a criminal. These are 100% when used on criminals because of the marked difference in the brain than that of a non-criminal.

[Caroline]

No he wasn't.  For one thing, you can't be 'categorised' as such.  Your slovenly language is the give-away here.  You do not know of the subject you speak.  Moreover, the account given in Wilkes' book is unsourced, unreliable and inaccurate.  I know this for a fact. 

Yes, and I make that very point in my own post, which you clearly haven't digested. 

As for the rest of what you say, it's cut-and-paste information, which again is a 'tell' that you lack real knowledge (i.e. experience in the field) and wish to replace it with received wisdom - a classic flaw often present in ignorant arguments.  Marrying up apparent character flaws and personality traits with a list you've found on the internet is hardly the most promising basis for a psychological evaluation.

And before you say that I lack knowledge and experience, yes I do - that is the whole point I am making!  Unlike you, I acknowledge my limitations and I am humble enough to remind people that I don't know things. 

Indeed, I would go further and argue that the whole basis of true knowledge is not knowing.  Your problem is that you get it the wrong way round and start from the premise that you know things you don't, then you fit the facts to what you don't know.  It's no surprise that the end result is inferior.

Sorry but you're wrong and the fact that you say you are 100% sure of Jeremy's guilt is an indication to me that I am conversing with somebody who has crossed the boundary of reason in this matter and is now espousing an article of faith.

I am tempted to close by offering you the floor to say whatever else you like.  It will be of no value because it will not be based on evidence and facts and it is not put forward in a spirit of fairness, but with an agenda.  It's rather like listening to Kerry Daynes, who has never met her subject, tell us that Jeremy had an off-switch during childhood and this stopped him feeling and emoting normally, as if Jeremy is a machine, like Arnie in The Terminator.  I suppose it's proof that credentials are not everything.  Perhaps we should rely on evidence instead, including practitioners who have actually evaluated him?

Some people allow vanity to overtake judgement and forget that learning requires humility in the first place.

Of course you can be classified as a psychopath! What you you think the PCLR check list is set to measure? There are also other assessment processes but when it was decided Bamber wasn't a psychopath, the only measure was the PCLR so in this instance this is a strong enough measure for you to discount the notion? Here you go again - flying around with the insults because you don't seem to have the capacity to control yourself! I don't know about the subject but you do? Something else you know all about is it? Is there no end to your UNEDUCATED knowledge that we must all accept above our own? It's you who doesn't know the subject but you think playing Mr Shouty will score you points. Apparently you only attack people who attack you first - point out in my post where the attack was/is? You don't have much in the way of introspection do you? Keep telling yourself it's others not you who are the problem and yet you have had an issue with everyone since you arrived and have caused much upset! Unless someone agrees with you, they are an idiot, stupid or even a liar. Seriously, if you can't debate something without getting personal - then forums are just not for you.

By the way you have also contradicted yourself!

First this:
I would not lock him for life.  Instead, I would have disinherited him and put him in a psychiatric hospital for 10 years.  I don't believe he is a psychopath. I just think he's crazy - as crazy as Sheila was.  In this regard, the evidence about his 'odd' behaviour at the funeral, etc., is of some relevance for the purposes of a psychological assessment.  It will be due to a combination of the family environment and the effects of cannabis. I don't mean that as an insult, rather I mean to say that I just don't believe he was thinking straight.

Then this;
"The basic fact is that he has not been, and never has been, diagnosed with a psychiatric illness or an anti-social personality disorder.  To the best of our knowledge, he is not psychologically abnormal, though he may well have other mental health issues due to his confinement."

Where is your evidence that was crazy and suffering of a psychiatric condition that would warrant him being 'locked up in a psychiatric hospital for ten years'? This is your opinion and you seem to be the only one here allowed one!

I cut and pasted the PCLR check list, would it be more valid had I remembered the whole list from memory? Don't be ridiculous!

The rest of your post is just complete waffle and bullshit and doesn't even warrant a response. Tempted to close by 'giving me the floor'. Listen, I'll post what I like, when I like, I don't need you to 'step aside' and give me permission for anything. If you would rather listen to Kerry Daines, then go listen to her. No she has never met Bamber but neither have you nor are you qualified (as she is) but you would lock him up for 10 years as a psychiatric patient!

You would do well to heed your own words here and stop trying to bully people who will not yield to your crap!

"Some people allow vanity to overtake judgement and forget that learning requires humility in the first place"

That's YOU to a tee.

[guest29835]

I am not going to reply to the screeching and shouting above.  Instead, I will just address whoever else happens to come along and read this, in the hope that I am reaching somebody out there who is fair, humane and sane.  Even just sane would do at the moment.

Let me first, briefly, reiterate the important points, which are that:

(i). We do not know if Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath in the clinical sense.
(ii). We do know that there is no evidence to support the assertion that he is a psychopath.
(iii). We also know that just because somebody has committed mass murderer, it does not necessarily follow that the person is a psychopath (though I accept it is tempting to think of the perpetrator that way, for perfectly understandable reasons).

Caroline is seeking to relegate (i), (ii) and (iii) above to the status of opinion.  It is not an opinion, it is a fair and neutral assessment of what is currently known.  I am open to changing my mind just as soon as better evidence comes along. 

The way I see it is if Jeremy is a psychopath, then he is a psychopath; if he isn't a psychopath, then he isn't a psychopath.  I have no vested interest in it one way or the other.  One or the other may help the defence or the prosecution, and in point of fact Caroline may wish to consider that in some circumstances a diagnosis of a personality disorder can be a basis for a plea of diminished responsibility in murder cases.  But the point is, either way, whoever it helps, I am neutral and just seek fact, and when I find it, I just accept it as fact.

The poster above, Caroline, clearly has serious personal problems, but that is a matter for her.  For our purposes, we can observe that she has crossed the boundary of reason.  She thinks she can know that somebody is 100% guilty.  In her case, there is one exceptional heterodoxy, which is the silencer - a topic on which she is a bit more reasonable, but in light of her scepticism about that evidence, her 100% affirmations seem all the more mysterious.

For Caroline, Jeremy's guilt is an article of faith and she is not able to engage in reasoned discourse on this subject.  Remember what I said to Steve: that free speech and reasoned discourse depend on a culture of such.  In the present case, a reasonable conversation with Caroline on this subject isn't possible, because she isn't reasonable in the first place. 

Caroline is obstinate and stubborn.  She possesses no relevant knowledge of the field she pronounces on, nor any professional clinical credentials in psychology, psychiatry, neurology or some other relevant field.  We know this straight-away because of her slovenly language, using terms like 'categorised' and 'classified', which is not correct clinical terminology, and copying and pasting indicative lists from the web.  Typically for an amateur, she insists she knows things she can't know.  She knows Jeremy is a psychopath.  For sure.  She will not admit doubt or show humility.  She won't listen to the didactic advice I am giving her, she won't listen to facts or evidence or reasonable arguments, at all.

In short, she is immune to reason and when her shortcomings are highlighted, she responds with hysterical abuse and rhetoric based on her amateur knowledge of psychology.

[Caroline]

I am not going to reply to the screeching and shouting above.  Instead, I will just address whoever else happens to come along and read this, in the hope that I am reaching somebody out there who is fair, humane and sane.  Even just sane would do at the moment.

Let me first, briefly, reiterate the important points, which are that:

(i). We do not know if Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath in the clinical sense.
(ii). We do know that there is no evidence to support the assertion that he is a psychopath.
(iii). We also know that just because somebody has committed mass murderer, it does not necessarily follow that the person is a psychopath (though I accept it is tempting to think of the perpetrator that way, for perfectly understandable reasons).

Caroline is seeking to relegate (i), (ii) and (iii) above to the status of opinion.  It is not an opinion, it is a fair and neutral assessment of what is currently known.  I am open to changing my mind just as soon as better evidence comes along. 

The way I see it is if Jeremy is a psychopath, then he is a psychopath; if he isn't a psychopath, then he isn't a psychopath.  I have no vested interest in it one way or the other.  One or the other may help the defence or the prosecution, and in point of fact Caroline may wish to consider that in some circumstances a diagnosis of a personality disorder can be a basis for a plea of diminished responsibility in murder cases.  But the point is, either way, whoever it helps, I am neutral and just seek fact, and when I find it, I just accept it as fact.

The poster above, Caroline, clearly has serious personal problems, but that is a matter for her.  For our purposes, we can observe that she has crossed the boundary of reason.  She thinks she can know that somebody is 100% guilty.  In her case, there is one exceptional heterodoxy, which is the silencer - a topic on which she is a bit more reasonable, but in light of her scepticism about that evidence, her 100% affirmations seem all the more mysterious.

For Caroline, Jeremy's guilt is an article of faith and she is not able to engage in reasoned discourse on this subject.  Remember what I said to Steve: that free speech and reasoned discourse depend on a culture of such.  In the present case, a reasonable conversation with Caroline on this subject isn't possible, because she isn't reasonable in the first place. 

Caroline is obstinate and stubborn.  She possesses no relevant knowledge of the field she pronounces on, nor any professional clinical credentials in psychology, psychiatry, neurology or some other relevant field.  We know this straight-away because of her slovenly language, using terms like 'categorised' and 'classified', which is not correct clinical terminology, and copying and pasting indicative lists from the web.  Typically for an amateur, she insists she knows things she can't know.  She knows Jeremy is a psychopath.  For sure.  She will not admit doubt or show humility.  She won't listen to the didactic advice I am giving her, she won't listen to facts or evidence or reasonable arguments, at all.

In short, she is immune to reason and when her shortcomings are highlighted, she responds with hysterical abuse and rhetoric based on her amateur knowledge of psychology.

You have contradicted yourself and you're a fool, a fake and pompous arse  and no, I won't be listening to you - end of! Why would anyone listen to you? You bogus idiot!

[guest29835]

You have contradicted yourself and you're a fool, a fake and pompous arse  and no, I won't be listening to you - end of! Why would anyone listen to you? You bogus idiot!

I have not actually insulted you, whereas you now insult me - which speaks for itself.  Let it stand, because people need to see how you, Steve and Jane behave on here when your poor reasoning is cornered and exposed.

However, if you think I have contradicted myself, then by all means please highlight this.  You will be doing me a favour and I will either correct your misunderstanding or correct my own.  Thanks very much.