So it's OK to break the law in cases where the person/property you are going after doesn't take preventative measures? So someone who doesn't wear body armor deserves to get shot?
Gary McKinnon day of judgement
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
So it's OK to break the law in cases where the person/property you are going after doesn't take preventative measures? So someone who doesn't wear body armor deserves to get shot?
It would still be an extradition. The US embassy is US soil.
No it isn't...contrary to popular belief Embassies do not infer Soveriegnty of the ground on which they built to the foreign power....all it means is that they have jurisdiction and diplomatic immunity within their embassy under international agreement and convention....for example the UK could pull those agreements from any embassy in the UK if it wanted to...
Strange the world leading authorities actually think so ... but hey I guess you know more about it after a quick read from Wikipedia.
No they don't nor did I say they did. I pointed out this is common behaviour.
No, it needs adjusting. That is going to happen.
You don't believe he is suicidal? Oh so you're another one who believes they know more than world leading authorities in that field. So pray tell what expertise do you have and qualifications that makes you able to make that assessment from a looking at the news whereas they have done full investigations?
No, I am not which is strangely enough why I didn't say it.
What is ruining this country is a skills deficit and poor education. The fact that you spent half that post attacking a strawman and another part claiming to know with certainty something opposite to that found by world leading authorities, who have actually had access to the person concerned, leads me to a rather obvious conclusion ...
Did I say that? I said that if you don't take preventative measures with your internal network security, you deserve what you get. Particular when the security hole is PEBKAC and as retarded as not using a password. If you're in a war zone and get shot and die because you didn't bother to put on your body armour because you couldn't be bothered, yes you deserve it. It's called being a moron. Usually they give out Darwin awards for such actions.
I just don't believe him. Call it gut instinct if you will, but I don't. Just in the same way I don't believe most other extradition cases where it's all about getting the most lenient punishment possible.
I do expect McKinnon could easily get him signed off this way if he wanted to.
That I don't buy into the liberalist attitude shown by many people who think it's everybody's fault except McKinnons?
There's nothing stating I have to accept what our softly-softly authorities believe, especially in a case where someone is playing their disability as a reason not to have to face the consequences of their actions.
That you would think otherwise leads me to a rather obvious conclusion as well...
Unbelievable.
Last edited:
Right, so independent medical opinion from 3 world leading authorities was gained. All who reached the same conclusion after assessing gary.
But they are all wrong and you know it because it's a 'gut instinct'.
I'd laugh if you were one of those people who attacks religious people for their 'silly beliefs that fly in the face of scientific evidence'. That would be wonderfully ironical.
And where have I said it is the fault of anyone. You are yet again attributing a viewpoint for me that I do not hold.
It's quite simple really even you should be able to grasp it.
US security was woeful.
Gary committed an act that would be criminal in nature in both the UK and the US.
Gary was assessed by people who actually know what they are on about (unlike you) and found the be at risk of suicide.
Therefore, he did not go.
The UK will see if they have sufficient info to charge him here.
The lower penalty here if found guilty may mean that all this waiting means his time is served.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You are making the assumption that everything is an exact science and anyone that calls themselves an 'expert' is an oracle and has proven methods for discerning truth.
There are a lot of 'world leading authorities' in things like Astrology and Homeopathy but that doesn't mean what they say isn't a load of rubbish.
Psychology, whilst being a much more credible field of study than the two mentioned above is far from being an exact science. You only have to read some of Sigmund Freud's ramblings to see that (all newborn boys fancy their mums and hate the dads as a result for example).
I'd like to know what tests we have for suicidal-ness and how robust they are. Lie detectors are famously inaccurate so if the 'world's leading authorities' can't come up with a fool proof system to detect lies, I don't see how anything else they say about a human's state of mind or intentions can be reliable either.
You do know there is hard-qualitative data behind these decisions don't you? You also know, I presume, that they would have used imaging to demonstrate their findings.
If you can't differentiate between an 'expert astrologer' and an 'expert neuropsychiatrist' then I'd shut up if I were you before you make yourself look even dafter.
If you really want to know to exact you would:
Establish familial mental health disease.
Perform an EEG, PET, fMRI, MRI, PET, CT, SPECT.
Using that data and found states and other diagnostic tests then you'd have a good idea of the rough chances of someone doing something silly based upon the wealth of data of abnormal findings and the subsequent events.
It's not different to cardiac, renal, hepatic, etc - hard clinical data guiding decisions - not mumbo-jumbo like you are trying make out.
Last edited:
Estebanrey hit it better than I can. Even the experts can only "theorise" that Gary McKinnon is thinking. Only GM knows if he is suicidal or not.
And I don't believe in religion, no. But as long as religious people don't bother me I just let them get on with it.
Well your posting attitude suggests otherwise. Currently it's bordering on trolling but we'll let that slide.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, but I still reserve my right to not believe the report, just like you reserve the right to believe it. I tend to take all my psychology with a pinch of salt as the vast majority is pure theory.
I sincerely hope he still gets the full sentence that he would have done in the US, but I would bet my life on it that he doesn't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You do know there is hard-qualitative data behind these decisions don't you? You also know, I presume, that they would have used imaging to demonstrate their findings.
If you can't differentiate between an 'expert astrologer' and an 'expert neuropsychiatrist' then I'd shut up if I were you before you make yourself look even dafter.
If you really want to know to exact you would:
Establish familial mental health disease.
Perform an EEG, PET, fMRI, MRI, PET, CT, SPECT.
Using that data and found states and other diagnostic tests then you'd have a good idea of the rough chances of someone doing something silly based upon the wealth of data of abnormal findings and the subsequent events.
It's not different to cardiac, renal, hepatic, etc - hard clinical data guiding decisions - not mumbo-jumbo like you are trying make out.
Did you actually read my post, or are you just twisting it's context for the fun of it?
Nowhere did I say that an 'expert astrologer' and an 'expert neuropsychiatrist' were on the same level, in fact I specifically said they weren't and that wasn't my point so your second paragraph is baffling.
The point, which you've clearly missed, is that not all fields of study have the same weight of scientific proof behind them. It's not black and white either where everything said by an expert is either 100% true or false.
Psychiatry is not an exact science and it never will be. That doesn't mean I'm saying it's 'mumbo-jumbo' (another strawman on your part) just that a lot of it is done by let's say educated guesses.
The things you mention above are great and looking at brain activity and working out whither someone's brain is working as we'd expect but as has already been said no one has managed to make an accurate lie detector and ultimately that's what we're dealing with here. Yes we can reliably say McKinnon was mentally ill, but that isn't what you were debating, you were debating whether he was suicidal which is a different.
Whether someone will commit suicide or not after threatening to cannot be discerned by using a EEG. It is either a truthful or false statement and no amount of machinery will tell you whether they are lying or not.
So your three 'experts' on this matter are nothing more than opinion, and certainly not enough to keep shouting down the other poster's opinion which differs to it.
Last edited:
Aspergers isn't really a case of being "unwell", I don't think it makes him "innocent" either (without a lot more information we can't really know if or at what level it may or may not diminish his personal responsibility), but I'm against him being ported off to the USA to be tried unless they can show sufficent consideration for this factor - something they've not traditionally been known for.
Also don't think UK subjects should be extradited for lesser crimes where murder, terrorism, serious organised crime or serious financial crimes haven't been commited against US interests tho the US should be able to bring legal action against these people the final product of that should be within the UK legal system.
Except this is not about psychology.
I guess I am trolling by pointing out yet again you clearly haven't got a clue what you are on about.
No, I didn't miss the point. You just don't understand the condition or the diagnostic criteria. If you did you would not be challenging the evidence base behind it.
The fact you claim it is so inexact is exactly what I was challenging. The science behind this is as strong as it can be from a medical point of view. Yet you make it out to not be and yet you quite clearly are not knowledgable about the field to be asking such questions as you asked.
Let's take 2 examples:
1) The recent outbreak of E.Coli 0157 causing HUS.
Medical experts say after this there is a significant chance of developing long-term kidney disease. They do not know for certain. They look at the statistics for the findings they have and arrive at a conclusion.
2) The subject at hand.
Medical experts say that there is a significant chance of suicide. They do not know for certain. They looks at the statistics for the findings they have and arrive at a conclusion.
Both using direct imaging, biochemical and haematological analysis, along with direct observation to correlate the findings with the statistical likelihood based upon population studies.
Would you challenge both sets of experts equally - even though they use the same methodology, the same strength of evidence.
When someone get's cancer you plug the disease type, the progression etc into the stats to get a chance of mortality and success etc.
When someone has a heart-attack you plug ... etc etc
You do the same with this it is no different. There is no certainty to most of these things. All the decisions are based on the same thinking - it is not exact its medicine not mathematics.
I eagerly await the thread about that e.coli outbreak where the OCUK 'experts' dispute all the experts that have been on the BBC and say how they have a gut feeling everyone is going to be all fine and dandy ... suddenly with Asperger's and mental health disease people become experts because they haven't got a clue about the actual science behind it all. If they did they may be inclined to stop looking so daft and basing a position on knowledge that is 50 years out of date.
Last edited:
It is exactly about psychology. As I said, only GM knows if he is truly suicidal or not. All these experts can do is guess to the best of their ability. Theresa May then has to decide based on this.
And yes, the way you're constantly baiting me does reek of trolling.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
What's a ninja exit?
Aw, bloody Hill.