Ian Brady - Live or die?

[Guest Had Enough]

Now this should be interesting. A thread about none of the predominant subjects on here these days. No religion or politics, UKIP or E.U. let's see what response we can get.

 

Ian Brady has been on hunger strike for many years and is force-fed through a tube. He wishes to end his life. Should we allow him to die or does the state have a moral obligation to prevent him from committing suicide?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[antony1969]

It won't happen but do a deal , put the poor relatives out of the terrible misery they have endured for years and tell the location on the moor and then assist his suicide .

If you don't then his ghastly secret goes with him eventually when he dies and the losers once more are the relatives .

[Guest pelmetman]

Trouble is I doubt he even knows where the poor lads body is *-)................has he not led the police on a wild goose chase several times before?

[antony1969]

pelmetman - 2013-06-18 8:29 PM

 

Trouble is I doubt he even knows where the poor lads body is *-)................has he not led the police on a wild goose chase several times before?

 

Some years ago he did Dave , but that was down to him and his ego and having still that last bit of power over the victims relatives .

Now he badly wants something , so tell , Keith Bennetts mother died not long ago never able to visit a grave .

I hate the man but I think it's the only way you will ever get the location .

[Symbol Owner]

You are so right, Frank, very interesting.

 

I guess many people would have wanted Brady (and Myra Hindley) hanged in 1966, when he and she were convicted, had it been possible. However, the death penalty for murder was abolished during the previous year.

If they had both been hanged, the parents of some of the children that they murdered might not have had some knowledge of where their children's bodies were -- leaving just the relatives of Keith Bennet, as referred to above by Antony, whose idea of a 'deal' seems immoral to me.

Both of the murderers would seem to have preferred death by hanging to incarceration -- Hindley said, more than once, toward the end of her life, that she would rather have been hanged and Brady's current tribunal hearing is to allow him to 'fix' his own death, rather than, as he says, to "Rot slowly" in Ashworth secure mental institution for an unknown length of time.

For those who want the ultimate retribution for his dreadful crimes, the worst that can be done to him is to prevent his wish to die surely?

If the medical opinion is that he is of 'sound mind' then I believe that to return him to prison and allow him to chose his manner of departure by refusing food and ending his own life might just be a merciful way out of the dilemma that the authorities are in, BUT, they could be seen to be culpable of assisting suicide, which is an offence, even though that didn't seem to bother them too much in Northern Ireland in the case of Bobby Sands.

You may be right, Frank, perhaps the state does have a moral obligation to prevent his suicide. I am not sure that his mental state has changed since he was committed to Ashworth, which, as a hospital, does have a moral duty to keep him alive.The whole case before the tribunal hinges on that particular point -is he sane - or not? It will be very interesting to see what the tribunal's decision (against which Brady would have a right of appeal if they decided against his wish) will be.

 

Fascinating. What do the rest of you think?

 

Thanks, Frank, for making my ancient 'brain-wheels' turn on this one!

 

A perplexed,

 

Colin.

[Guest pelmetman]

Alternatively, if they had both been hung that would of been a kind of closure for the relatives in my view, as all this time they've been hoping he or she might talk *-)...............

 

 

[Symbol Owner]

Sure Dave, I had meant to mention that -- Hindley certainly believed that and thought that her continuing existence and, therefore, the active and continuing interest of the press contributed to the ongoing 'torture' of the relatives -- so you have a point there, I think.

 

Colin.

[CliveH]

For such a despicable individual to give him anything he wishes would be wrong in my book.

 

To allow that mother to die without knowing where her sons body lay was perhaps his cruelest act.

 

I am a great believer in the old adage that you reap what you sow.

 

I am normally all for saving taxpayer money and so putting Brady down has enormous merit on that score alone - and that he is a monster just adds to the potential benefit.

 

However, if he also wants that outcome - then I am happy that a few of my tax £'s is used to squirt liquid up his nose and into his stomach whilst he is restrained to stop him pulling out the tube.

 

He fears slowly "rotting" it seems.

 

I can think of no better end for him.

 

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Rather astonishing given your ongoing spat, that you can even be arsed to have any truck with yet more "conversations" with this individual.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Well as we now know who HE is ;-)........................I hope we can rehabilitate him :D.............his demeanor does appear somewhat different 8-)

[CliveH]

1footinthegrave - 2013-06-19 7:48 AM

 

Rather astonishing given your ongoing spat, that you can even be arsed to have any truck with yet more "conversations" with this individual.

 

 

I bear no individual any malice whatsoever.

 

I believe that Frank is an "odd one' certainly.

 

And I think that what he has been caught out doing speaks volumes.

 

That said - his post re Brady is a good one. If I were to take issue with the mere fact that he posts on here then I would be as guilty as he is of Ad Hom attacks against the individual and his overt attacks on others whereby he seems to want to "own" the Forum. He did it before which was why he was banned.

 

But as Dave says - maybe he can be rehabilitated.

 

I believe we should "play the ball - not the player".

 

:-S

[Symbol Owner]

CliveH - 2013-06-18 9:45 PM

 

For such a despicable individual to give him anything he wishes would be wrong in my book.

 

To allow that mother to die without knowing where her sons body lay was perhaps his cruelest act.

 

I am a great believer in the old adage that you reap what you sow.

 

I am normally all for saving taxpayer money and so putting Brady down has enormous merit on that score alone - and that he is a monster just adds to the potential benefit.

 

However, if he also wants that outcome - then I am happy that a few of my tax £'s is used to squirt liquid up his nose and into his stomach whilst he is restrained to stop him pulling out the tube.

 

He fears slowly "rotting" it seems.

 

I can think of no better end for him.

 

 

Quite so, Clive. I think that there is a delicious irony in the fact that here we have an individual who gloried in giving those poor kids a painful, tortured death and who now, wishing death upon himself to gain relief from a a form of living Hell, may well be denied that wish, judicially. And yet -- if he had been tried for his crimes before 1965 he would have been consigned to the dusbin of history at the end of a rope.I know that his self-absorbed desire for publicity ( and a perverted form of 'fame') may well come into it too, but, at 75 and full of his own delusions, which punishment would he have wished upon himself (with the benefit of predictive sight) if he had been offered judicial death by hanging or this life sentence?

 

Hmm.................

 

Colin.

 

P.S. Let's get 'back on track' folks!

 

C.

[Guest pelmetman]

Symbol Owner - 2013-06-19 9:39 AM

 

CliveH - 2013-06-18 9:45 PM

 

For such a despicable individual to give him anything he wishes would be wrong in my book.

 

To allow that mother to die without knowing where her sons body lay was perhaps his cruelest act.

 

I am a great believer in the old adage that you reap what you sow.

 

I am normally all for saving taxpayer money and so putting Brady down has enormous merit on that score alone - and that he is a monster just adds to the potential benefit.

 

However, if he also wants that outcome - then I am happy that a few of my tax £'s is used to squirt liquid up his nose and into his stomach whilst he is restrained to stop him pulling out the tube.

 

He fears slowly "rotting" it seems.

 

I can think of no better end for him.

 

 

Quite so, Clive. I think that there is a delicious irony in the fact that here we have an individual who gloried in giving those poor kids a painful, tortured death and who now, wishing death upon himself to gain relief from a a form of living Hell, may well be denied that wish, judicially. And yet -- if he had been tried for his crimes before 1965 he would have been consigned to the dusbin of history at the end of a rope.I know that his self-absorbed desire for publicity ( and a perverted form of 'fame') may well come into it too, but, at 75 and full of his own delusions, which punishment would he have wished upon himself (with the benefit of predictive sight) if he had been offered judicial death by hanging or this life sentence?

 

Hmm.................

 

Colin.

 

If it were up to me...............I'd do a deal like Antony suggested, then if he does reveal where the lad is...........I'd take him straight back to Rampton and stuff a tube up his snout >:-)...................but maybe that's me just showing my dark side again (lol)

[John 47]

It seems to me that it is all about control. By refusing to reveal the burial site he remains in control of that information and in his warped mind that means he has the power. This latest move is similar. He wants to be calling the shots. Apparently, he refuses to talk to "minions" and demands to discuss things only with the senior management. And to a certain degree he has succeeded because after all these years he is back on the front pages and everybody is talking about him. The authorities have no choice but to hear his case but I feel that the way for the public to treat it is to ignore it rather than give him the publicity and the importance he craves.

[Symbol Owner]

pelmetman - 2013-06-19 9:45 AM

If it were up to me...............I'd do a deal like Antony suggested, then if he does reveal where the lad is...........I'd take him straight back to Rampton and stuff a tube up his snout >:-)...................but maybe that's me just showing my dark side again (lol)

 

Unfortunately Dave, it's not as simple as that, the tribunal judge has already stated that he has no authority to ask Brady where he buried Keith Bennet. The late Winnie Johson's (Keith's mother) solicitor, believes that: "Brady should not be able to control his own fate", but, as John says, it is all about power and control.

I have always believed that Adler's psychology should be treated as equally important as that of Freud or Jung. In fact, it may contain more practical and usable insights into the actual behaviour of 'real' people than they do.

Whether we should ignore Brady's posturings, as John believes, or draw lessons from it for the handling of other psychopaths, is a matter for posterity, I think.

 

Colin.

[John 47]

Symbol Owner - 2013-06-19 10:10 AM

 

Whether we should ignore Brady's posturings, as John believes, or draw lessons from it for the handling of other psychopaths, is a matter for posterity, I think.

 

Colin.

 

I don't think these two things are necessarily mutually exclusive. Those treating him will undoubtedly learn lessons which may well be of use in the handling of future psychopaths but I don't think anything is achieved by the wider public being involved - except to give him the publicity he craves.

[Symbol Owner]

I quite agree John, but that's 'press freedom' for you isn't it? When Ken Clarke tried to put forward ideas for more 'secret' court hearings (admittedly in very different circumstances) he was 'howled down' -- quite rightly, I think.

 

Colin.

[postnote]

Had Enough - 2013-06-18 8:08 PM

 

Now this should be interesting. A thread about none of the predominant subjects on here these days. No religion or politics, UKIP or E.U. let's see what response we can get.

 

Ian Brady has been on hunger strike for many years and is force-fed through a tube. He wishes to end his life. Should we allow him to die or does the state have a moral obligation to prevent him from committing suicide?

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry but your opening statement is incorrect “No religion or politics, UKIP or E.U.” You brought the state which our government into your comments. Anyways..

 

Brady never asked any of his victims if they wanted to live or die. If so I would expect they would have replied, yes live please.

 

He decided their fate for them and took their lives. Now our elected government as in all cases accept there is a moral and religious obligation not to let anyone commit suicide, well that is unless you’re Muslim than you go to a greater place in death.

 

Letting him die is the easy way out for him and I’m sure that his victims would like to see him suffer as they did. Yes you have it, my vote is to keep him alive, the one thing he hates and loathes, life.

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Symbol Owner - 2013-06-19 10:10 AM

 

pelmetman - 2013-06-19 9:45 AM

If it were up to me...............I'd do a deal like Antony suggested, then if he does reveal where the lad is...........I'd take him straight back to Rampton and stuff a tube up his snout >:-)...................but maybe that's me just showing my dark side again (lol)

 

Unfortunately Dave, it's not as simple as that, the tribunal judge has already stated that he has no authority to ask Brady where he buried Keith Bennet. The late Winnie Johson's (Keith's mother) solicitor, believes that: "Brady should not be able to control his own fate", but, as John says, it is all about power and control.

I have always believed that Adler's psychology should be treated as equally important as that of Freud or Jung. In fact, it may contain more practical and usable insights into the actual behaviour of 'real' people than they do.

Whether we should ignore Brady's posturings, as John believes, or draw lessons from it for the handling of other psychopaths, is a matter for posterity, I think.

 

Colin.

 

I dare say academic's and psychologists will find it a fascinating study................but at that doesn't stop people like Brady out smarting and working the system to their advantage *-) ....................

 

Wherein lies the nub of the problem with our judicial system...........it panders to the needs of the criminals rather than the victims............Its high time we changed the word "rehabilitation" to "retribution" >:-)......

 

Must go............I've got to attend my speed awareness course this afternoon :D

[John 47]

Symbol Owner - 2013-06-19 10:50 AM

 

I quite agree John, but that's 'press freedom' for you isn't it? When Ken Clarke tried to put forward ideas for more 'secret' court hearings (admittedly in very different circumstances) he was 'howled down' -- quite rightly, I think.

 

Colin.

 

True - I wasn't suggesting secret hearings but suggesting that the media pay too much attention to this kind of thing. I know that it would be naïve to expect the press to agree not to publicise it but if fewer of us bought the papers that seem to relish it then maybe eventually the message would get through. On the other hand, the call for "blood" that comes every time his name is mentioned (including on this thread) means that we are a long, long way from that happening.

 

 

[Symbol Owner]

Absolutely right, John, but what is puzzling me is that, in my (admittedly small) experience of Mental Health Tribunals, they were always held 'in camera' -- I don't think that was because it was mandatory -- just that it was thought that the hospital patient needed some privacy to bring their issues (usually with the hospital and its staff, but sometimes with the Social work Service which had denied them of their liberty by means of a 'section' of the Mental Health Act) to the Tribunal. It may also have been because, unless there was some scurrilous aspect to the case, the press would not find it interesting, or, 'in the public interest'. Of course, in Brady's case, his was an 'admission' via a criminal court (from prison originally) so the whole process is coloured by the fact that this is a 'criminal tribunal' and Brady will never be at liberty, whether his place of incarceration is Prison or secure Mental Hospital. But, be that as it may, John, I don't see that there is any more reason for Bradys' tribunal hearing to receive press publicity than that of your average 'Joe', except perhaps, that he himself wants/welcomes it.

 

Colin.

[Guest Had Enough]

Interesting replies and I'm pleased to see that we didn't just get a lot of 'hang the bastard' responses.

 

My view is that Brady wants to die, so we shouldn't let him! He lives a miserable existence where he prays for death. We should keep him alive at all costs as he deserves the punishment and I believe that this is also the view of the relatives of the victims.

 

I believe that the state also has a duty of care to prevent the suicide of those it incarcerates. There's a remand centre in my neck of the woods that earned the soubriquet 'Grisly Risley' because of the number of young men who killed themselves whilst being held there. They weren't hardened criminals but lads who'd made silly mistakes and being locked up with real criminals, and the responsibility for ending up there drove them to kill themselves.

 

There are now more precautions being taken to prevent such happenings. I know that Brady is in a different league but if we do decide that the state should try to prevent prisoners killing themselves we can't then pick and choose to whom we apply it. Who would make that choice and where would the line be drawn?

 

 

 

[Symbol Owner]

I agree with all that you say Frank/H.E., but the whole point of the legal process which Brady is undertaking is because he believes that, if he is found to be sane/'of sound mind' then he can be transferred back to prison, which doesn't have the 'nursing' facilities of the special hospital, nor the duty of care which means that they have to continue force-feeding him. Although the prison staff at 'grisly Risley' or any other of Her Majesty's establishments have a duty to supervise and put prisoners, who are thought to be vulnerable, on 'suicide watch' (i.e to be aware of possible 'active' attempts at suicide, e.g. hanging with a belt, etc.,) they have less of a mandate than a hospital when it comes to refusal of food/water as a means of causing one's own demise. So it would seem that the state and its authorities are not really deciding 'where the line should be drawn', more likely allowing the inmate to chose to eat the proferred food, or not. Force feeding of prisoners has been prohibited by the Declaration of Tokyo of the World Medical Association in 1975 -- provided that: "The prisoner is capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgement". Brady is no fool, and has no doubt, 'mugged up' on the law,so his case hinges on just that -- they shouldn't be trying to force-feed him in prison -- but, as a psychiatrist has testified today, he is still psychotic enough to need hospital care.If the tribunal accepts this advice then you will get your wish Frank, and he will cintinue to be forcibly prevented from engineering his own death.

 

Colin.

[antony1969]

Had Enough - 2013-06-19 4:44 PM

 

Interesting replies and I'm pleased to see that we didn't just get a lot of 'hang the bastard' responses.

 

My view is that Brady wants to die, so we shouldn't let him! He lives a miserable existence where he prays for death. We should keep him alive at all costs as he deserves the punishment and I believe that this is also the view of the relatives of the victims.

 

I believe that the state also has a duty of care to prevent the suicide of those it incarcerates. There's a remand centre in my neck of the woods that earned the soubriquet 'Grisly Risley' because of the number of young men who killed themselves whilst being held there. They weren't hardened criminals but lads who'd made silly mistakes and being locked up with real criminals, and the responsibility for ending up there drove them to kill themselves.

 

There are now more precautions being taken to prevent such happenings. I know that Brady is in a different league but if we do decide that the state should try to prevent prisoners killing themselves we can't then pick and choose to whom we apply it. Who would make that choice and where would the line be drawn?

 

 

 

But with respect Frank , would it not have been an acceptable response to say " hang the bas...d " taking into account the horrendous crime committed then and all the years of him holding the poor family on a string . Feelings run high with such crimes and the " hang the bas...d " way of dealing with such vermin should not reflect on or let anyone judge the person who may say it .

 

[Guest pelmetman]

A bit of cut & paste.............for a change

 

Moors Murderer Ian Brady 'chronically psychotic'

 

Moors Murderer Ian Brady remains "chronically psychotic", the expert in charge of his case at the high-security Ashworth Hospital has said.

 

James Collins told the mental health tribunal assessing Brady's condition that his type of paranoid schizophrenia does not "just fade away and die".

 

Brady, 75, wants to be transferred to prison where he hopes to have more control over when he dies.

 

He has been on hunger strike since 1999 and is fed through a tube.

 

Brady and his partner, Myra Hindley, tortured and murdered five children, aged 10 to 17, between July 1963 and October 1965, burying some of their victims' bodies on Saddleworth Moor, near Manchester.

 

'Severely handicapped by disorder'

Brady was first sent to Ashworth, on Merseyside, in 1985 after being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, suffering delusions and hallucinations.

 

Dr Collins, giving evidence during the third day of the tribunal, said he believed Brady's illness was "clearly still active".

 

"He is better, much better and able to control it (the illness) - but his life is still severely handicapped by his disorder, his mental illness," he said.

 

"He is acting like someone who is chronically psychotic."

 

Dr James Collins

Ashworth Hospital

Brady wants the tribunal to judge that he is no longer ill so he can move to prison - where he hopes he will not be fed against his will, so he might try to starve himself to death - although his precise intentions remain unclear. Ashworth Hospital opposes any bid to move him to a prison.

 

Dr Collins said Brady had paranoid beliefs about fellow patients and staff.

 

He said Brady thought patients were spying on him, and that staff were agents for the Home Office and Prison Officers Association.

 

Brady wrongly believed that others were out "to get at him" and he had spilled cereal outside one man's door and smeared the chair of another with jam and honey.

 

Dr Collins said that over the past eight months Brady had barely come out of his room, unless at night or when other patients were in the canteen.

 

Brady's wish that he could "send cancer in an envelope" to one doctor was one example of the anger which was the driving force for his paranoia, the tribunal was told.

 

But Dr Collins said he was not aware that Brady was paranoid before he was jailed.

 

'Dreading consequences'

He said Brady had managed to hold down a relationship with Hindley, a job, and "sideline work" as a pornography dealer when he was a young man.

 

Among a "whole range" of psychotic episodes - "many of them pleasant" - experienced by Brady were talks with entertainers Laurel and Hardy, and Cilla Black.

 

Asked to predict Brady's response if he were returned to prison, Dr Collins said he thought there would be a "period of triumph", but that "he is going to be frightened".

 

"He has always said prison is horrible. He had a horrible time at Durham and he would not come out of his room at Parkhurst.

 

"He is going to be frightened... he won't admit it. He is going to be dreading the consequences. I am not sure he will come out of his room."

 

He said he thought it might be "relatively quick" for Brady to return to his condition as it was in 1985 when he experienced overt hallucinations, adding that it could take "only a matter of weeks".

 

 

 

 

Hmmmm............having been married to a paranoid schizophrenic..............and was once stabbed in the leg........although I admit it was only an HB pencil :D...................but it still hurt like hell 8-)................and the second time she missed with the scissors to my throat 8-) ............... I have some experience of your proper nutter, at the sharp end!

 

I maybe changing my view of Brady :-S.................although I'm not changing my view of the authorities *-) ............they made a huge mistake when they did away with the secure asylums *-)............and allowed the care in the community nutters to roam amongst us 8-).............without the benefit of 24/7 observation, some of these poor souls are a crime waiting to happen :-|