nightowl
eazybee
The agencies who are supposed to be the experts weere woefully ineffective, in not assessing his real needs and arranging for more appropriate sanctions. Easy to say
"can’t lock up all young people who express violent thoughts, nor can we section them unless they are considered to have a mental disorder (or need assessment). Psychiatric hospitals are not there to contain all people who may commit a serious crime."
And the result:
3 children slaughtered brutally and eight others injured and scarred fpr life.So what do you suggest should have happened eazybee?
I hope you don’t think I’m at all complacent about what happened. But throwing up our hands and saying something should have been done won’t change it - we need to know what could have been done, and that’s why we have inquiries.
Wise answer.
It will still come down to the fact that people are only sectioned if they are considered an immediate danger to themselves or others.
And that means that people who are judged to be close to this criteria are must be known, and under very watchful eyes, and have a very high degree of proof from his words or actions he was an immediate threat.
This young man we now know was obsessed with violent fantasies and intent, but the degree of that wasn't known until the house was searched and his online activity scrutinised. which the police couldn't do unless a crime had been committed.
Its clear that resources that used to be used for Prevent as in brought in at a time of terrorist cells should be better used now to look at the 'lone wolf" phenomena,
and its clear that a close look at what led this young man to do what he did could be very valuable in identifying people at risk,
and a close look at failure of communication and the means of closing the gaps are needed.
But I dont think we can ever totally prevent this kind of phenomena.


