Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
allardjd

You Can't Fix Stupid

Recommended Posts

 
"USAF Base in England Placed on Lockdown, Shots Fired as Car Attempts to Force Entry"
 
 
Car attempts to crash gates at RAF Mildenhall
 
"Mildenhall is one of the largest presences of U.S. forces in the United Kingdom and Europe..."
 
"Shots were fired by American service personnel and a man has been detained..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, head shake from me.:blink2: Like a mouse kicking an elephant if the foot.:D Maybe they should go after ISIS as they seem to kill a lot of innocent Muslims, we tend to go after the ones that are shooting at us first.

 

In breaking news I await this thread being locked, lol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, MartinW said:

Mentally ill. Detained under the mental health act.

 

I can't help wondering about his ethnicity, religion, etc.  No name in the article.  It says he's a UK citizen, which doesn't tell a lot.  I doubt we'll ever hear.  Authorities will profess privacy considerations to avoid it, unless the press gets a whiff of their searching of his residence, etc.

 

Most US bases I've been on (quite a few) now have rising concrete barriers embedded in the roadway a few hundred feet past the security post at the entrance.  The guards push a button if a vehicle runs the gate and a very stout concrete and steel barrier literally rises out of the pavement ahead.  They don't get far even if they get past the guards.

 

The mental illness is pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Anyone who tries this and thinks they have a snowball's chance in hell probably is mentally ill, or terminally stupid.

 

John

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MartinW said:

Mentally ill. Detained under the mental health act.

 

Hopefully he will get the treatment he requires. 

 

 

 

And he can get all that treatment whilst at Her Majesty's pleasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's section 136. The law states he can be held where he is, or taken to a place of safety. 

 

A place of safety can be their home, a friend or relatives home, a police station, an accident and emergency hospital or a psychiatric hospital. 36 hours is the max he can be kept on section 136. After a mental health assessment he will either be discharged, or further detained in hospital under a different section of the mental health act. Undoubtedly the latter in this case. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MartinW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, allardjd said:

 

I can't help wondering about his ethnicity, religion, etc.  No name in the article.  It says he's a UK citizen, which doesn't tell a lot.  I doubt we'll ever hear.  Authorities will profess privacy considerations to avoid it, unless the press gets a whiff of their searching of his residence, etc.

 

 

 


He wouldn't have been held under section 136 unless they were very convinced they were dealing with mental illness, in which case his ethnicity isn't relevant. He had a Teddy Bear with him, not usually a terrorists weapon of choice.

 

Authorities will indeed profess privacy considerations, not because they are trying to hide his ethnicity, but because it's normal under section 136, when dealing with mental illness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MartinW said:

It's section 136. The law states he can be held where he is, or taken to a place of safety. 

 

Unfortunately the Law fails to state or provide a safe haven for the victims. Just as long as these perpetrators fly the flag of mental health issues as a defence, they are rarely held to account for their crimes. In the meantime, grieving families somehow have to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives. Then society is made to feel guilty because it didn't do enough to help the perpetrator in the first instance.

 

Oh please, the humanity!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, allardjd said:

Most US bases I've been on (quite a few) now have rising concrete barriers embedded in the roadway a few hundred feet past the security post at the entrance.  The guards push a button if a vehicle runs the gate and a very stout concrete and steel barrier literally rises out of the pavement ahead.  They don't get far even if they get past the guards.

 

The civilian atomic energy research facilities near me have similar measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Andrew Godden said:

 

Unfortunately the Law fails to state or provide a safe haven for the victims.

 

 

The public don't require a "safe haven" as the perpetrator is detained in a psychiatric ward.  The reason for being "detained" is twofold, to protect the mentally ill individual from harm and also to protect the general public from harm. 

 

 

Quote

Just as long as these perpetrators fly the flag of mental health issues as a defence, they are rarely held to account for their crimes.

 

 

"Flying the flag" is usually defined as supporting an issue. I think you may have meant to imply that the perpetrators fake being mentally ill in order to avoid punishment. Apologies if I've misinterpreted. 

 

Rarely does anybody succeed at  faking mental illness in such circumstances. Whether an individual is mentally ill or not will be determined by highly trained mental health professionals, psychiatrists etc. In which case they will be detained as long as necessary to keep themselves and the public safe. And that can mean indefinitely. Not often that a perpetrator manages to fool trained medical personal and a judge that they are mentally ill when they aren't, although it has happened. 

 

Mental illness is a horrible thing. Horrible for the sufferer, the sufferers family. In extreme cases, horrible for any victims and their family members. Undoubtedly this guy will be safely secured in a mental hospital by now where he can do no harm. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MartinW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was a Putinfeld goon attempting to steal an aircraft to confound, or enact vendetta for, the RAF's unofficial assistance with the ATWC progress.

 

Seriously though, I used to be astonished at how easy it was to get onto my old USAF base without any notice. I used to rent an apartment off base with a couple pals, becuase the baracks sucked and rents were cheep in the 80's especially when split 3 ways. My shortcut would shave about a 2 mile walk off of my morning commute to work by following the rail tracks onto base, completely avoiding any gates, and they put me onto the main road about 1/4 mile from work. Never got challenged once in 3 years.  I won't say which base, but I google satellite viewed the area recently and saw no new gates on the tracks even now...although there may well be cameras by now...I f'n hope. :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tim_A said:

The civilian atomic energy research facilities near me have similar measures.

 

They also installed them at the nuclear plant where I worked, not too long before I retired.  I guess maybe they didn't want me coming back.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Captain Coffee said:

Seriously though, I used to be astonished at how easy it was to get onto my old USAF base without any notice. I used to rent an apartment off base with a couple pals, becuase the baracks sucked and rents were cheep in the 80's especially when split 3 ways. My shortcut would shave about a 2 mile walk off of my morning commute to work by following the rail tracks onto base, completely avoiding any gates, and they put me onto the main road about 1/4 mile from work. Never got challenged once in 3 years.  I won't say which base, but I google satellite viewed the area recently and saw no new gates on the tracks even now...although there may well be cameras by now...I f'n hope.

 

Things changed significantly at US bases shortly after 9/11.  It would be a pretty safe bet that the base security forces have everything covered, either by manned security, barriers or electronic surveillance.  

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MartinW said:

He wouldn't have been held under section 136 unless they were very convinced they were dealing with mental illness, in which case his ethnicity isn't relevant. He had a Teddy Bear with him, not usually a terrorists weapon of choice.

 

Obviously I don't know what really happened in this case but I'm not so quick to take press releases like the one reporting him being mentally ill at face value.  If the authorities don't want the details made public they may very well put out a plausible story that obscures the true details. Sometimes it's done to provide cover while an investigation is in progress and sometimes it's simply out of a politically correct policy to avoid the potential for offending or embarrassing certain segments of the population. 

 

I'm not saying it happened in this case, only that it's possible and I retain a level of skepticism about official pronouncements on these matters.  The UK and certain other European countries in particular are often keen to pull a blanket over extremist attacks or at least downplay them if and when they can.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, allardjd said:

 

Obviously I don't know what really happened in this case but I'm not so quick to take press releases like the one reporting him being mentally ill at face value.  If the authorities don't want the details made public they may very well put out a plausible story that obscures the true details. Sometimes it's done to provide cover while an investigation is in progress and sometimes it's simply out of a politically correct policy to avoid the potential for offending or embarrassing certain segments of the population. 

 

I'm not saying it happened in this case, only that it's possible and I retain a level of skepticism about official pronouncements on these matters.  The UK and certain other European countries in particular are often keen to pull a blanket over extremist attacks or at least downplay them if and when they can.

 

John

 

 

 

 

Details are continuing to emerge. Apparently he was initially arrested for trespass and  criminal damage. It quickly became apparent though that they were dealing with an individual with mental health issues. Suffolk police confirmed it wasn't being treated as a terrorist incident. They also confirmed that they aren't looking for anyone else in connection with the incident and that there was no wider threat to the public.

 

It started at 1:40 and Mildenhall was on lockdown for less than an hour. If there was anything else going on I don't think that would be the case. I would also think that if it was anything other than a mentally ill individual, he would be dead, rather than having a few cuts and bruises. 

 

I'm not aware of the UK or any European nations downplaying terrorist attacks.

 

Mildenhall is due to be handed back to the RAF sometime in 2018, so I don't think they will be bothering to invest in better security. 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MartinW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×