Humanities desk
< July 16	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 17[edit]

I know that Peugeot has a museum in Sochaux, France. Does Citroen and Renault have their own museum? Also, does the Sochaux museum have their own shop where they mini replicas of the cars from the past like Peugeot 504, 404, 604 and etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.253 (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renault seems to. I can't find one right off for Citroen though. Dismas|^(talk) 07:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Citroën Conservatoire in Aulnay-sous-Bois. It is a private museum, ie not open to the public. According to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatoire_Citroën ...il est ouvert aux collectionneurs, aux membres des clubs Citroën, au personnel du groupe PSA, aux journalistes et à des partenaires comme Michelin ou Total. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody answered about the toys at Sochaux, France?

How much would a boat like this one cost? http://www.hulu.com/watch/73450/saturday-night-live-digital-short-im-on-a-boat-uncensored Count Westfall (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything from a couple of days' pay to a lifetime of hard savings, depending on your income. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance of getting a serious answer on this? Count Westfall (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the USA, we cannot see your boat, too far away. However, if the boat is big and modern then; you are asking the wrong question! The mooring-fees, the repairs, the extra costs, etc., make it one of the most expensive pastimes. Someone said to me; it is a hole in the sea that you throw money in! MacOfJesus (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am on a boat, and with a dodgy EDGE connection I don't have the bandwidth to see your boat video. I suggest that you compare your boat to ones on an MLS viewing site such as yachtworld.com. Did your video capture any emblems showing the make or model of the boat and were you told the length of the boat? If not, just select power or sail and make a guess at the length range to see if any of the boats for sale resemble it. If you find something somewhat similar you can refine your search from there and see what the asking price of a range of such boats are. -- 110.49.193.1 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I am correct: A ganancial is a common property of the spouses. A separate estate is a property owned by either of the spouses, and not a ganancial. A paraphernalia is a seperate estate of a wife. A dowry is a property originally owned by a woman who later brings it to her husband.

But, is there a term to call

1. a seperate estate of a husband?
2. a property originally owned by a man who later brings it to his wife?

203.131.212.36 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ganancial seems to be used in Spanish law, and is not afaik a term used in English. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One term is "brideprice", though it's used more in anthropological contexts than traditional European law. AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of Morganatic marriage may be relevant to item 1, and a prenuptial agreement might have a bearing on how it might be stipulated. I've certainly come across the concept in historical contexts, but can't track down a specific word to describe it. Dower fits an interpretation of the wording of item 2, but may not be what the OP actually means. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article above, we see several mixed marking systems of the German concentrations camps. It is obvious, that a Jew could be at the same time also a political enemy. Hence the yellow-red star. Equally possible is the combination Jew-Jehovah's Witness, since according to Nazi ideology, Jew was a biological term. However, there is also the combination Jew-Gypsy. How can this last option be possible? Both are biological concepts, and define people from different backgrounds, don't they?--Quest09 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reference to offer for the time being, but presumably that particular star was reserved for people with Jewish and Roma ancestry. Yul Brynner's mother might have qualified, for example (as might have he himself). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I am of part Chinese Malaysian and part Pākehā descent. While both of these have a biological basis it doesn't mean I can't be both. As noted below the Nazis didn't require much to classify someone as a 'Jew' apparently even less for a 'Gypsy' so it's hardly surprising that someone could be both Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a good look at that page, the large table in English under the heading Table of camp inmate markings is a translation of the German one (presumably authentic; see the .jpg file for details)] at the upper right. It's a comprehensive table with all combinations (permutations of the color codes) appearing, regardless of whether even one individual fit that category. I doubt more ought to be read into it. See extensive discussion of similar issues on the Talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Mischling Test, under the Nazis a person was considered Jewish if they had 3 Jewish grandparents (out of 4) or in certain cases if they had 2 Jewish grandparents. I can't find a corresponding statement in Wikipedia for the Nazi criteria for being considered a Gypsy (Romani); at Porajmos it says that "criteria defining who is Romani were exactly twice as strict as those defining any other group", whatever that means. But this page specifically states that starting in 1938 "A person could be judged as having too much 'Gypsy blood' to be allowed to live if two of the individual's eight great-grandparents were even part Gypsy". So clearly in the Nazi view it was possible to be both Jewish and Gypsy.

--Anonymous, 06:27 UTC, July 18, 2010.

According to her article, the Swedish aristocrat Brita Sophia De la Gardie became a nun in France in 1745. She died in 1797, and I realised that was after the french revolution. Apparently, she survived it. As both a nun and as a former noble, I would have thought she'd been decapitated in 1793-94. The article say nothing about her life in 1789-1797, and I became curious. Speaking as someone with a knowledge about the french revolution, what is her most likely fate during the revolution? Can you give me a good guess about what her life looked like then, as the artcle does not mention anything about it? Is she likely to have been arrested? --85.226.41.215 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of her before. But far from all nobles in France was executed during the revolution, as well as far from all the people executed were nobles (in fact it was a minority in both cases). So she had a pretty good chance of survival, especially considering her age at that time and most likely reclusive monastic lifestyle. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wasn't the convents closed during the revolution? Was the nuns put on the street? Wasn't the nuns and monks also arrested and in some cases executed? And if not, what did the government actually do with the nuns? How did they live after the convents where closed? Were they put in prison? --85.226.41.215 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the order you ask, broadly speaking:

• yes, they were closed;
• yes, but many nuns would have had families to return to, and others would have been able to find secular roles in society (including marriage);
• generally only priests who actively opposed the revolutionary authorities were imprisoned or executed, so nuns and monks who also did so might have been similarly treated, but they had less of a leadership role and so would have been less likely to oppose the Government and be arrested;
• outside of arresting or executing any real 'troublemakers', the Government would have had no reason to 'do' anything in particular about (ex-)nuns;
• the nuns would have lived any way they could (as per the second answer) and may in some cases have gone to other countries to join convents there, just as many of the aristocrats fled abroad;
• as previous answers imply, the Government might have imprisoned a few nuns for specific offenses, but would have had no reason to bother with the rest.

The above notwithstanding, in such turbulent times corruption and bullying become relatively unrestrained, so in specific instances individual nuns, etc, may well have fallen foul of individual unscrupulous Government officials regardless of the official line.

Some things to bear in mind are that 18th-century France had much poorer communications than most countries in modern times, the Government (of whatever kind) had fewer resources and could not enforce its will with modern efficiency, and much of the population would have been reluctant to co-operate with orders and laws they disagreed with, so any edicts against, say, nuns, would not necessarily be quickly and comprehensively carried out. In due course, the extreme hostility of the Revolutionary Government towards the Catholic Church was moderated and the two came to an agreement, the Concordat of 1801. You might also want to read our article Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution for general information about the topic. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone unequivocally identify this painting as painted by George Shepherd (artist) in 1819? If so, please provide a WP:RS reference --Senra (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unanswered}} --Senra (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I did find a page about Aldermaston which mentioned the painting and said it was in the Ashmolean in Oxford (although the page spelled it "Ashmoleum"). I searched that museum's site to no avail, but you could send them an email and ask if they know about it. 81.131.60.225 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you although it would help if you linked the page you found. From the above information, I also searched Ashmolean Museum without success. I also found Lesley Anne McLeod:The Regency World Exactly as it Was:Friday, July 23, 2010 and have left a message on her blog. It does not help unless she comes back and can confirm the painting is indeed G Shepherd --Senra (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to Senra, the OP. If all else fails, you might write to Oxford, after finding out the name of the proprietor where the painting is kept, and ask if there is any inscriptions or indications on the painting. Otherwise you might have to go there. (I have a similar problem with tracing a transcript from The Vatican for an article page. I will probably have to go there). [I found that another had done this before me and left their study in The Catholic Encyclopaedia 1930]. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do that, you might contact the BBC and seek; Antique Road Show, who have experts on these paintings at hand who may be be able to throw light on this, and you can do this on the internet. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google this: BBC Antiques Roadshow, then find: 01179742395. Add: Antiques Roadshow, BBC, Whitesladies Rd., Bristol, BS8 2LR. Also: antiques.roadshow@bbc.co.uk MacOfJesus (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: www.antiquesmaster.co.uk You can see them on: BBC antiques master.

Also: bbc bargain hunt - Tim Wonnacott should be able to help. Add: Bargain Hunt, P.O. Box 229, Bristol, BS99 7JN. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a sociological, psychological, or scientific explaination for this please? (I don't want a "Stuff happens"-type explaination).

My own tenatative armchair theorising would be: aggressive people seem to be compelled to invent an enemy ("them") they can blame and vent their rage on. Aggressive people, for whatever reason, tend to gravitate towards Council Estates. Aggressive people consider being aggressive something to be proud of, and to admire in others. Moat was considered a hero by his council estate peers ("us") because he hurt the police ("them"). Thanks 92.29.117.202 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well what i've heard in the news is that he has become 'popular' because he was 'anti police' and the 'supports' are anti-police too. ny156uk (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive people don't gravitate towards council estates. There are very long waiting lists for social housing in the UK; there are criteria for getting housing and families with young children and pensioners have priority. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you truely believe your first sentence, then you've been lucky in never having any dealings with council estate residents. I'd be interested to see the comparative per-capita criminal conviction rates for a council estate compared with homeowner's housing estates. Perhaps the relationship does not hold so much in London, where expensive housing forces the middle-classes to apply, but it does in other areas. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might bear in mind that the underlying economic forces, like unemployment and poverty, that lead to people having to live on such estates are the same ones that make them angry about "the system", including the police - but one doesn't necessarily cause the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that people have any reason to be "angry". They ought instead to be grateful for all the free benefits, free council accommodation and so forth that they get. We all know that there are plenty of not-so-nice jobs available, which is why more enterprising people (whom I rather admire) from eastern europe come here. If people were prepared to work hard then they could pull themselves out of the estates - many people do. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minority of people, often young and immature ones who are still testing the boundaries of what they can get away with, enjoy doing things to upset the "decent majority", especially if they can do so anonymously or with imagined impunity, hence some aspects of the Punk movement, vandalism of public facilities, internet trolling, and other antisocial behaviours. I suspect the majority of these 'tributes' and the Facebook group postings are not sincerely meant, but are made because those responsible think they're being 'cool' and funny. Others may genuinely have a (to most people) distorted understanding of Society, the Police, and their own relationships to these entities. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put an alternative view. This man had children. He worked in a social setting (nightclub bouncer) and so would come into contact with many people, some of whom he must have helped or even been nice to. He even had friends - Paul Gascoigne is the most famous of them. Those people, and his children and their friends, quite likely had only positive memories of him and would want to express their regret at his passing in what has become the accepted method in the UK (a public floral tribute). Nobody is either 100% good or 100% evil, remember. His violent end may indeed have been out of character, or maybe symptomatic of a mental breakdown. You and I just don't know. Given that, I wouldn't want to stop anyone remembering the man they knew. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Hitler wasnt such a bad guy either. Adolf made mistakes that's all, who dosnt? 92.28.244.168 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that we don't have an article on floral tribute, and roadside memorial doesn't really cover it. There has been a lot of newspaper comment recently on this phenomenon in relation to the Moat case - such as here, here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this leads me to think some sort of Bonnie and Clyde-phenomenon is at work. Gabbe (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of Raoul Moat's failings as a man are reflected in society's failings to give him a life that he deserved. People don't do these things because they are evil or wicked, they do things for a reason; and that this man felt he had a reason is a great shame and a collective responsibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.107.38 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. He got a far better life than he deserved through the charity of taxpayers paying him benefits and giving him a council house to live in. Having an irrational belief that you deserve luxury without working for it is a pathetic excuse for murdering people. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it patently obvious that the someone's self worth is not governed alone by the their material wealth. I don't think anyone was to the inclination that he did it because he thought he deserved a bigger car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.107.38 (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not connected with your previous comment. And pray tell what this mysterious "reason" is that he had that justified murdering people? And what would this also unspecified "life that he deserved" be?

Clearly not, it was infact a response to your comment and not my own. Please withold your flippancy further, I am not Raoul Moat and nor do I speak for him, nor do I know what his reasons were, or whether they were likely to be upheld as valid. I assert only that he did have some, one is forced to this conclusion by the fact that he undertook those actions. People do things for reasons, not for no reason at all. Raoul Moat may have had very bad reasons, but that he could discern this, or that he could not see that what he was going to do was unacceptable or see whatever perversion it was that led to him doing what he did shows only that there was some kind of tragic failure in his character; and as a child and product of the society in which he lived, which formed his character, the larger society must bear much of the burden for what went on. Raoul Moat was not an 'evil' or 'possessed' man, he was merely a vessel in an awful act that showed us how far from a well functioning society we really are. Your obstinacy leads me to believe you are of the widely held paradigm that if you take responsibility for only your own direct actions, and keep your head down and toes behind the line, that that is enough; and all I say is that there is another paradigm that believes that it is not enough, but that there is a collective responsibility of a group of people on large for each other's welfare. Raoul Moat's upbringing and education failed him. His mental health failed him. And most poignantly and catastrophically his regard for social law failed him. These things should not be regarded as his responsibilities alone, for if we do so, we will see similar tragedies again.

92.15.4.196 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not know what his reasons were". You have not said what 'the life he deserved' was either. 92.28.250.141 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that floral tributes for Raoul Moat were greater in council estates (let alone council estates vs estates of a similar socio-economic grouping) Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, plenty. As far as I am aware there were two groups of floral tributes, one where he shot himself, and one at the council estate house where he lived. So about 50% of them were on a council estate. "V. estates of a similar socio-economic grouping" - I don't think there are any. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait there are only two groups of floral tributes and both of them are at places strongly connected to him? How the heck did council estates even come in to it? In any case, it seems the answer to my question is a clear cut no, the evidence strongly suggestions floral tributes are going to the obvious places i.e. places connected to Moat but the percentage in council housing isn't higher then average (well it's a bit nonsense to talk about averages when there are only two locations but anyway...). In fact it seems we can draw few conclusions about where the people leaving them live because they are being left at places connected to Moat rather then where they live so for all we know it could be largely coming from the upper class who live in several villas. But anyway thanks for clarifying. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"How the heck did council estates estates even come into it?" Because you asked "Is there any evidence blah blah greater in council estates", duh. Who are "we"? Arent you aware that your paragraph above is completely unconvincing? So Lord Posh is going to drive around for half an hour looking for Moat's council house, while Moat's near neighbour, drinking companion and former cell-mate plus his many relations are going to refuse to leave any on ethical grounds? Lol. 92.28.244.168 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I think you've missed part of the discussion. The person who started the thread and left the very first question is the one who brought council estates in to it not me. Since this person made a claimed, I asked for evidence. It appears from what you've said there is none and the person who started this thread hasn't offered any, so I have no idea why council estates were brought in to it by whoever asked this question.

It seems unlikely Lord Posh has to drive around. For starters, they would have drivers and people to do it for them. If they wanted to get personal, they'd probably tell their drivers to drive them there. If they do drive, they would have these fancy things called GPS which would remove the need for them to 'drive around for half an hour looking for Moat's house' by simply directing them to where they want to go when they put in the directions.

My impression was that there were many floral tributes, more then can be explained by people who actually knew Moat well. That being the case, the question remains who were these people and why did they leave floral tributes. The OP of this question claimed it was because they came from council estates or something of this sort. As you have amply demonstrated, that's not supported by any evidence. In fact we have no idea who left these tributes who didn't know Moat from the evidence presented and no evidence to suggest they disproportionalty came from council estates. We could speculate this may be more likely because of the similarity in social economic status etc, but that's just speculation and we stillhave no reason to think living in council estates is a factor in and of itself.

Note that if it's true his friends, family etc were the primary ones leaving the tributes that's just further proving my point that whoever brought council estates into this discussion in the first places has no idea what they're talking. As this person lived in a council estate, it's likely quite a few of those were from council estates but where these people lived is somewhat irrelevant since the important factor is they knew Moat. There's no reason to presume if Moat had been a middle class worker living in a house he owned his friends etc wouldn't have done the same thing so the issue of council estates is irrelevant from the info at hand. (Carl Williams (criminal) is an example of someone in a rather different situation who had plenty of people who knew him paying tribute.)

If it helps, consider when Diana died there were a hell of a lot of floral tributes outside Buckingham Palace. I'm pretty sure these weren't all left by the Queen (who wasn't even living in it for most of the time IIRC) or people living near Buckingham Palace. Similarly recently floral tributes were left for Michael Jackson at his home, his grave yard and his star on the Hollywood walk of fame. Again I don't believe these were primarily originating from his neighbours, dead people, and other people with stars.

By nature people tend to leave floral tributes at places related to the person who died, and therefore the fact that these floral tributes were left at the council estate where Moat lived doesn't tell us much about who actually left these, it's possible from the info at hand that a large majority of people leaving them don't actually live in council estates. The fact that there were only two locations and both of these were places strongly connected to Moat and his death and fairly far apart strongly suggests these places were primarily chosen because of their connection to Moat, not because the people leaving them lived in that estate so thought they might as well leave tributes in their estate because it was easier.

It is of course possible to imagine a situation where other people, such as the upper class may feel a greater connection to someone then their neighbours and may therefore be more likely to leave floral tributes while that may seem unlikely in this particular case, it remains a possibility since despite the claims of the OP of this question, there is no evidence to suggest most people leaving them live council estates, in fact the only connection to council estates is the fact Moat lived in one.

In other words, as I said earlier on, why the heck did council estates even come in to it? Sadly I'm guessing the OP will never be able to provide and answer.

P.S. Your IP looks similar to the person who started this thread but I presume that's not you since I presume in good faith the person who started this thread would know they are the one who first brought council estates in to it in the first place. Since this thread concerns something in the UK, it's not really that surprising. If I am mistaken, then really I'm ever more perplexed. In any case, I think I've wasted enough time on this silly thing considering so far no one has posted any evidence of the relevance of council estates so am unlikely to be back.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of theories have been posited by psychologists and others.

• Admiration for keeping the police on the go, and indeed shooting and seriously wounding an officer.
• Sympathy for his domestic situation and an agreement with his solution. some segments of society seem to see shooting former girlfriend and her current boyfriend as an acceptable course of action.
• Friends and family who are prepared to recognise and celebrate the man despite the actions that led to his death.
• Bandwaggoning by a couple of minor political parties who see his death as a potential cause celebre.
• A communal reaction to the media scrutiny and a tacit expectation placed on communities to do so.

I have no view on which is more likely, it;s probably a combination of reasons.

ALR (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really all about being super-masculine? 92.28.244.168 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is something missed here: He did appeal for help, laying his request for continual help clearly, and was not taken-up. If this is truly so, then, should he ever have been in prison? It is a major step for a patient of his illness to admit he needs help, and secondly to seek and spell it out clearly. I am referring to his request for help from the social workers. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you suggesting should have happened then? 92.28.243.14 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That he be accessed with the two qualified psychiatrists accessors, (legal in UK). That the necessary medicine be accessed for him, if necessary in a secure unit. If all that has come out is true then the system has let him down. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only person here to imply that it is acceptable for people to abdicate responsibility for their own lives: to deserve luxuries without needing to work, or commit crimes without being accountable for them. This seems to be related to authoritarianism: the belief that someone deserves things through being dominant rather than because of what they do or do not do. 92.28.250.141 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you actually followed the news item. He did ask for help. I said: "If this is so...". This is a factor that must be taken into account. The question still remains as to why this was not taken up, at the time. I was not aquitting him or making judgements regarding this. But I do say again: "If this is so, then the system let him down". Now, at this late stage, we are left to pick up the pieces. The original question: The floral tributes make sense in this light. I am not condoning what he has done. I am trying to understand, and perhaps prevent this happening again. There are serious questions to be asked. Again, if this is so, then I see disiplinary proceedings for the Social Workers who didn't take up the request he made.MacOfJesus (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two recordings I heard were of him asking to move to someones caravan for a holiday, and the other was I think requesting psychiatric help - not sure - but was that just to get better treatment, get out of prison, or even in the hope of getting a more lenient sentance after he committed his crimes? 92.15.3.219 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did hear the recording of him outlining continual help to the Social Workers, outlining this clearly. I do work for the mentally impaired, and if I were on the panel hearing the appeal or inquest I would look towards diciplianary procedures. This, from the evidence, could have been avoided, assuming that he was being truthful then. If the evidence is true, then he was not acting rationally when he committed the crimes. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not implying that anyone who commits murder must by definition be insane and not responsible for their actions. 92.15.3.219 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not atall. However, I have experience in picking-up the signs. The assessment that should have followed with two psychiatrists trained and passed in this must agree to commit someone to a section, which must be reviewed with the patient in 10 days. I have only a recording of an interview with the Social Workers. In the recording I heard, he was almost committing himself to a section. This is a step he would not have taken lightly. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]