Why is this still happening?

[DeppityDawg]

Overall lots of good points in your post incl about the data, I guess you do have a point about the data but as you say, more can be done which is all I was saying.

Sorry. I got sidetracked and missed your reply earlier

We have a poster on here who displays all the classic symptoms of autism/aspergers (when he isn't banned). He is often disruptive and can make this forum a frustrating place to simply post a comment. He is obsessive to the point of the absurd, humour flies over his head, he cannot read the social signals most of the rest of us can, he makes threats of violence, but is offended easily by others who get tired of his nonsense and snap back at him. Yet, most of us instinctively know something is not right and make (to a greater or lesser extent, with me being definitely at the "lesser" end of the scale) allowances for that. He gets away with far more than any other poster ever has, on this and its previous forums. And this is just the internet. Can you imagine having to work for 10 hour a day with perhaps 15 or more people many times worse on the spectrum, who may or may not be violent depending on random factors such as the position of their drink cup?

[DeppityDawg]

I post an opinion based on recollections of published allegations, inquiry findings, and observation over the years. Anybody can contest, object, or query — irrespective of motive — it's a free forum...

Really? And who were these "inquiry findings" from? Cynthia Payne and Sigmund Freud? Public inquiries generally don't tend to indulge themselves in pyscho-analytical subjective matter, such as what killers or abusers "enjoy", they tend to stick to definable facts. That is more for the likes of the Sun or click-bait internet "news", if that's what you mean by published

Your posts are rarely worth contesting, since they are primarily made by your own admission to provoke a reaction from others. Simply pointing it out is usually enough to expose what a shallow ****** you are.

[cromwell]

I had determined to say no more,but I would only like to add that I wish Borchesters granddaughter all the well in the world and to any other posters family who are in a similar situation.

[Thomas]

Do you mean can't as in bypassing the swear filter or as in cannae? 

The answer to that is because it's not true? We have had long posts with disagreements without the bile.

I could point to my grandmother's final years of care or loads of other things, but I feel there's no point as you'll just reject out of hand everything I write and accuse me of being a "anglo lefty" trying to do this or that.  You get into that mood sometimes and debate becomes impossible until you come out of it.

ok.

I suppose you are right in a way....this is an emotive subject for me as it is for cromwell so i suppose im trying to make light of it , and bringing in other issues from the wider care system.

The o/p is abhorrent , of course it is , but im also thinking along deppitys line of wary of anything harriet harperperson is involved in flagging up.

So i will leave it there , and honestly this isnt some big conspiracy of mine to discredit labour.

[Borg Refinery]

translates as can't reply.

no worries.

Do you mean can't as in bypassing the swear filter or as in cannae? 

why is it everytime i disagree with you  , no matter what the subject... you flounce (etc)

The answer to that is because it's not true? We have had long posts with disagreements without the bile.

I could point to my grandmother's final years of care or loads of other things, but I feel there's no point as you'll just reject out of hand everything I write and accuse me of being a "anglo lefty" trying to do this or that.  You get into that mood sometimes and debate becomes impossible until you come out of it.

[patman post]

And of course, with your extensive experience and knowledge of all these organisations, you'd know all this, wouldn't you? Maybe another poster will now step in and question your PhD credentials in the subject...then again maybe not

I post an opinion based on recollections of published allegations, inquiry findings, and observation over the years. Anybody can contest, object, or query — irrespective of motive — it's a free forum...

[Thomas]

Just reads as an empty rant about the "nasty english lefty" bogeyman who exists only in your head.

why is it everytime i disagree with you  , no matter what the subject... you flounce off like a wee lassie in a bad mood screaming about scotland , scottish indy and the snp?

What is it you dont get , nor understand , in the fact im not left wing , dont share your politics , and dont agree with you on many subjects?

I think the bogeyman in your head is this is all some big scot indy conspiracy .Think about it and you will see how daft that is.

[Thomas]

Just reads as an empty rant about the "nasty english lefty" bogeyman who exists only in your head.

I suggest you read Deppity's thoughtful contribution, cromwell's and some of mine and try to up your poor standard of argumentative screechy ranting.

translates as cant reply.

no worries.

[Borg Refinery]

And of course, with your extensive experience and knowledge of all these organisations, you'd know all this, wouldn't you? Maybe another poster will now step in and question your PhD credentials in the subject...then again maybe not

He really does try to stir things up on every feckin thread doesn't he?

Not content with just letting people discuss something without trying to be a dick... 

Um....  no I didn't.

I stated that the current system in the US means that voters in some rural states, which per definition will have more farmers, have more power per voter due to the way the electoral college is made up.

At no point did I suggest you thought farmer votes should count less than other people - in fact I didn't even express a firm view, but if you're asking for one, they should count the same - there should be no electoral college and it should go on the popular vote.

Ok, my apologies, I may have misread what you wrote then.

But let me ask: what would you do to improve things here? I've given my suggestions, what are yours? If you posted earlier, I missed it.

[DeppityDawg]

There's obviously still more than a few individuals in society who are not only cruel, but actually enjoy tormenting and torturing those they see as different or under their under their control. It's seen in supposedly regulated organisations such as the care sector, military, police, prison service, etc, where one or two can spur a whole group into callous and intentionally cruel behaviour — sometimes even ganging up against their own..

And of course, with your extensive experience and knowledge of all these organisations, you'd know all this, wouldn't you? Maybe another poster will now step in and question your PhD credentials in the subject...then again maybe not

[Borg Refinery]

No, there hasn't been "data". There are media items about court cases, and there are links to vested interest groups (Mencap etc), which give isolated "facts and figures", but fail to give empirical data, by which I mean measurable. Its no good for people like Harriet Harman to react to figures like "38,000 restraints" unless we can see the context? Out of HOW MANY total patients? Remember, this in in a year. If its out of 38,000 total patients, then thats an average of once per person per year? Do you see what I am getting at? Its pointless reacting to an isolated figure with claims of "human rights abuse" without the context. The only thing that I can find in one of your links that gives it context is that 980 people in that figure were restrained "5 or more times", which suggests that a small number of problem cases might make up a large proportion of those uses. And to be honest, I haven't got the time or the inclination to trawl through a 90 page document to look for the context. But we can't possibly "know" how many of these uses of restraint were justified unless we were close to the situation at the time. In many of these cases, there may have been no other alternative. Its all very well saying that these people are "special needs", as if that means whatever they do can be mitigated with some magic method, or that "they wouldn't hurt" a fly. We don't know that, and in some cases it that will not be true

In answer to the question, honestly? I don't know. I don't have this "experience" you talk about of working in this environment, and I doubt most people commenting in the thread do either. My nephew as I said does work in that environment. The people he works with are high dependency. I don't see him that often, but some of the things he says about that job are concerning. I suspect, like many others issues, care for the elderly for example, this is something that needs more and better funding, better regulation and higher wages to attract more of the better people. Whose going to pay? Are we all willing to pay more for better services, or are we all going to be content moaning about it on internet forums? In the end, there are so many deserving cases for more funding, you'd have to raise taxes enormously to fund them all. That I think is the real problem. Many years ago, society didn't care for these people, and they'd have rotted in some institution. We didn't have a developed social care system like today. If we want to solve all of these problems, we all have to put our hands much deeper into our pockets.

Fair enough, so more funding is needed, more research and better training. I agree.

Overall lots of good points in your post incl about the data, I guess you do have a point about the data but as you say, more can be done which is all I was saying.

[Borg Refinery]

.

Just reads as an empty rant about the "nasty english lefty" bogeyman who exists only in your head.

I suggest you read Deppity's thoughtful contribution, cromwell's and some of mine and try to up your poor standard of argumentative screechy ranting.

[Borchester]

Could attitudes to the disabled and mentally impaired among some people be a residual trait in humanity stemming from an inbuilt desire in much of the animal world to keep the breed fit and healthy?

You can always find examples of the mentally and physically handicapped being laughed at and being mistreated, but that is the exception to the rule. Most folk want to pitch in and help those less able than themselves.

[Javert]

Elsewhere, you said rural farmers in the US do not deserve the same voting power as IT workers from California in the electoral college. You said so 100% explicitly.

Um....  no I didn't.

I stated that the current system in the US means that voters in some rural states, which per definition will have more farmers, have more power per voter due to the way the electoral college is made up.

At no point did I suggest you thought farmer votes should count less than other people - in fact I didn't even express a firm view, but if you're asking for one, they should count the same - there should be no electoral college and it should go on the popular vote.

[patman post]

Could attitudes to the disabled and mentally impaired among some people be a residual trait in humanity stemming from an inbuilt desire in much of the animal world to keep the breed fit and healthy?

Flock /Herd/Pride animals will sacrifice the vulnerable to predators — even to the point of testing the water by throwing in a few to see if they're eaten, or driving away or killing the offspring of beaten competitors.

The officially sanctioned inhuman — and even money-making — treatment of the insane and mad (who were locked away and treated like animals in a zoo) is recorded as happening in London in the 14th/15th centuries.

There's obviously still more than a few individuals in society who are not only cruel, but actually enjoy tormenting and torturing those they see as different or under their under their control. It's seen in supposedly regulated organisations such as the care sector, military, police, prison service, etc, where one or two can spur a whole group into callous and intentionally cruel behaviour — sometimes even ganging up against their own...