Reasons why Bamber cycled to & from WHF.

[Caroline]

The term “psychopath” is one you’ve probably heard tossed around in conversation, sometimes flippantly. But what is a psychopath, really, and how can you tell if you fall under this classification?

https://thriveworks.com/blog/3-ways-know-psychopath/

Psychopathy is a construct that has traditionally been restrictively applied to adults (Viljoen et al., 2010), mainly because the label is strongly associated with antisociality and also carries with it connotations of intractable deviance and incorrigibility. While only about 1% of the adult general adult population would be classified as such by Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, psychopaths make up around 20% of the prison population in North America (Hare, 2003). Above and beyond criminal activity, psychopaths are particularly prone to violence, demonstrating increased aggressive behavior and committing a greater number of violent attacks than non-psychopaths (Salekin et al., 1996).

[Jane]

That links refers to the classification of personality disorders in the sense of setting out a taxonomy.  You don't appear to realise that clinical practitioners diagnose patients, they don't classify them like zoo animals.  And even if they do, they certainly don't 'classify' them after one visit.

You simply do not understand the subject on which you are pronouncing and you are coming across as stupid and making a fool of yourself.  You need to stop this - for your own good.  Ignore me if you wish, but if you continue spreading misinformation, we will challenge you.

Interesting. You're going to such great lengths to let it be known that you have no formal education or qualifications in law, that it causes me to wonder if you spent long enough in coutrooms to pick up legal speak. Applying the same guidelines to you having no qualifications in psychiatry, but so grandiose appears your knowledge of it,  it causes me to wonder if you may have spent long enough in a psychiatrist's company to have received a diagnosis?

[ngb1066]

Why were they removed?
You have suffered yourself from comments made over on the red forum
It happened to me again last night
I asked you who removed the posts?

I have removed numerous posts by several members because I believed they crossed the line.  This is a quick judgement call which has to be made by the moderation team and it is sometimes difficult to decide where to draw the line.  We try to be fair but whatever we do we tend to get attacked from different directions.  I sense a general view that moderation here is too light and much more should be removed.  We err on the side of caution, maybe rightly but maybe wrongly, but we do the best we can.  Heavy moderation in my view can often makes things worse and can push members away.

[lookout]

I scored---1. On Psychopathy.

[guest29835]

The term “psychopath” is one you’ve probably heard tossed around in conversation, sometimes flippantly. But what is a psychopath, really, and how can you tell if you fall under this classification?

https://thriveworks.com/blog/3-ways-know-psychopath/

Psychopathy is a construct that has traditionally been restrictively applied to adults (Viljoen et al., 2010), mainly because the label is strongly associated with antisociality and also carries with it connotations of intractable deviance and incorrigibility. While only about 1% of the adult general adult population would be classified as such by Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, psychopaths make up around 20% of the prison population in North America (Hare, 2003). Above and beyond criminal activity, psychopaths are particularly prone to violence, demonstrating increased aggressive behavior and committing a greater number of violent attacks than non-psychopaths (Salekin et al., 1996).

We're going round in circles.  You don't seem to want to listen.

The point is that a personality disorder must be diagnosed.  You are using generic terms such as 'categorised' and 'classified' because you want Jeremy to be a psychopath and you want to ascribe the relevant traits to him rather than wait for a clinical evaluation.  You are skipping the essential step of somebody evaluating and observing him over months, maybe years, and offering a formal diagnosis - perhaps a tentative diagnosis.

But the main point is that you have no basis to call him a psychopath, and in fact the evidence from clinicians who have evaluated him points the other way.  This is just the simple truth, but you will not listen.

The reason you need to believe Jeremy is a psychopath is because it fits some theory of yours about his motivations, whether it's an inheritance motive or you just think he instantiated some sort of rage there and then (I myself suspect the latter could have occurred, but it doesn't to me follow that he is a psychopath).

Thank you.

[guest7363]

I have removed numerous posts by several members because I believed they crossed the line.  This is a quick judgement call which has to be made by the moderation team and it is sometimes difficult to decide where to draw the line.  We try to be fair but whatever we do we tend to get attacked from different directions.  I sense a general view that moderation here is too light and much more should be removed.  We err on the side of caution, maybe rightly but maybe wrongly, but we do the best we can.  Heavy moderation in my view can often makes things worse and can push members away.

Well said NGB, you’ve got a thankless job.

[JackieD]

No Jackie, I was just making a point. JB is definitely not in need of one. You know my views on the case, I've always been 100% on the innocent side.

I meant you do not believe JB is a psychopath and you have been challenged on this numerous times. I agree with you

[JackieD]

Interesting. You're going to such great lengths to let it be known that you have no formal education or qualifications in law, that it causes me to wonder if you spent long enough in coutrooms to pick up legal speak. Applying the same guidelines to you having no qualifications in psychiatry, but so grandiose appears your knowledge of it,  it causes me to wonder if you may have spent long enough in a psychiatrist's company to have received a diagnosis?

This post needs to be removed

[guest29835]

I have removed numerous posts by several members because I believed they crossed the line.  This is a quick judgement call which has to be made by the moderation team and it is sometimes difficult to decide where to draw the line.  We try to be fair but whatever we do we tend to get attacked from different directions.  I sense a general view that moderation here is too light and much more should be removed.  We err on the side of caution, maybe rightly but maybe wrongly, but we do the best we can.  Heavy moderation in my view can often makes things worse and can push members away.

One of the fundamental problems is a complete unwillingness to listen and take into account the other side.  No matter how many times something is explained and no matter how often, in my case, I emphasise my neutrality, pro-guilt people in particular don't seem willing to take on board anything that goes against their dogma. 

For some reason, Jeremy had to use the bike.  He absolutely had to.  Never mind it makes little sense and there are lots of good reasons why he wouldn't.  He had to.  He had to!  Here's 20 reasons why he had to!  Of course, people are allowed to disagree, it's more the over-strained insistence that I take issue with.

Jeremy has to be a psychopath.  He must be.  Never mind there's no evidence for it.  He must be.  He must be I tell you!  Here's a copy-and-paste of psychopathic traits and look how many Jeremy has!  He must be a psychopath!  And what about the 'eminent psychiatrist', eh?

[guest29835]

Interesting. You're going to such great lengths to let it be known that you have no formal education or qualifications in law, that it causes me to wonder if you spent long enough in coutrooms to pick up legal speak. Applying the same guidelines to you having no qualifications in psychiatry, but so grandiose appears your knowledge of it,  it causes me to wonder if you may have spent long enough in a psychiatrist's company to have received a diagnosis?

Please keep this post up, NG1066.  It simply shows her for what she is and it's 'one for the archives', as I like to say. 

Thanks Jane.

[ngb1066]

NG1066 thinks they should be given enough rope to hang themselves - and I can now see his point.  I've been taking a look at that so-called Red Forum, and they have two sticky threads in which they supposedly prove why Jeremy did it and not Sheila and set out falsehoods in the case.  There are some good points in those threads, but most of it is easily refuted and they get a lot of the evidence wrong. 

I recall Alice in Wonderland: "You're nothing but a pack of cards!", I think was the line, if I remember my Lewis Carroll.

I am not sure about the context of this.  I do not recall using those words.  I do believe in intervening as little as possible so that arguments can play out.  I am less likely to intervene in relation to a post containing an attack when the recipient of the attack is capable of responding robustly and does so.  Where both sides of a spat can be seen members can make up there own minds.  Where posts contain no argument but simply abuse they are normally removed. 

Bans are imposed but as a matter of policy they are imposed only where absolutely necessary.  Some members have criticised this policy, claiming it is used selectively and in a partisan way to enable certain posters to stir up trouble from one side of the argument.  This is totally untrue and frankly I get irritated whenever the allegation is made.

[JackieD]

Well said NGB, you’ve got a thankless job.

Well if Caroline didn’t think it was clever to leave here and post personal comments on the red forum (exactly what Ngb suffered) things wouldn’t get nasty.
I will not put up with her posting personal information about me anywhere or she will get a taste of her own medicine and she will have bought it all on herself and by the way nobody knows JB is 100% guilty

She fails to grasp that

[JackieD]

I am not sure about the context of this.  I do not recall using those words.  I do believe in intervening as little as possible so that arguments can play out.  I am less likely to intervene in relation to a post containing an attack when the recipient of the attack is capable of responding robustly and does so.  Where both sides of a spat can be seen members can make up there own minds.  Where posts contain no argument but simply abuse they are normally removed. 

Bans are imposed but as a matter of policy they are imposed only where absolutely necessary.  Some members have criticised this policy, claiming it is used selectively and in a partisan way to enable certain posters to stir up trouble from one side of the argument.  This is totally untrue and frankly I get irritated whenever the allegation is made.

Well Mat should have been banned earlier shouldn’t he. He was a troll setting up fake accounts

[ngb1066]

Pop of back to the red where you feel right at home with like minded people

I will repost my deleted posts later or in the morning
The truth hurts doesn’t I Caroline

Please do not repost deleted posts.

[guest29835]

I am not sure about the context of this.  I do not recall using those words.  I do believe in intervening as little as possible so that arguments can play out.  I am less likely to intervene in relation to a post containing an attack when the recipient of the attack is capable of responding robustly and does so.  Where both sides of a spat can be seen members can make up there own minds.  Where posts contain no argument but simply abuse they are normally removed. 

Bans are imposed but as a matter of policy they are imposed only where absolutely necessary.  Some members have criticised this policy, claiming it is used selectively and in a partisan way to enable certain posters to stir up trouble from one side of the argument.  This is totally untrue and frankly I get irritated whenever the allegation is made.

I think you did use it at one point, but it was years ago, and I don't see why too much should be made of it.  I just assumed that must be your rationale for keeping these people here, since their arguments don't exactly bowl me over.  I was half-expecting to come on here and be quickly put right and to come away convinced Jeremy is guilty.  That hasn't happened, even though I am fair-minded.  Let's just say I'm not impressed with pro-guilt argumentation - neither in style nor content does it enamour itself to me.

Of course, I add the caveat that I make no claim as to what you think, let's be clear about that, and nobody should imply that.