A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
So rich kid with (probably) autism attacks two other rich kids in their…. Cabins (?) while wearing only his underwear with hammers and also a teacher that came to help. He claims he was sleepwalking. Badly injures them, gets minimum 12-life for the attack.
Every part of that story is wild.
The judge said the boy experiences an autism spectrum disorder ...
That's not for a judge to determine.
Edit: While the above statement remains true, reporting elsewhere shows:
Kerim Fuad KC, defending, told the court the defendant had also been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c781p92vdyko
Sloppy journalism from The Guardian here.
What makes you think that's not the judge just reading a medical professional's opinion?
Edited
Did the judge actually determine it, or did the judge just relay information given to them by someone else?
Edited
If the judge said it then it would have been established fact in the case. This can be established by evidence and found as fact in the case, or it can be part of the agreed facts of the case, in which case the court doesn't waste time hearing evidence. All it takes to become agreed fact is for the defence to present it as part of their case and for the prosecution to not dispute it.
In that context the finding of fact by the court is more than enough for the paper to report on it, and the two versions presented by you of it being said by the defence and by the judge, are entirely compatible with one another. Nobody is going to demand to see the boy's medical history to verify an uncontroversial point like this. That would just be a waste of time.
The papers presented it as stated by the defence and the judge, they said nothing false or misleading, and I don't see any problem with that part of their reporting.
Now, if you have an issue that it was reported because it casts autistic people in a bad light, the issue becomes whether you think it's something the papers should leave out. Well, the defence considered it important, and it became news. Not much we can do about that after the fact.
I don't get why this is sloppy. They didn't say he diagnosed him with autism, only that he said he experiences it.
You jumped to conclusions and are trying to blame them. I certainly did not interpret it the same way you did.
The only authority cited in the article for this autism diagnosis is the judge. A different article stated that the defendant's attorney "told the court that [the defendant] had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder ..." That's far more trustworthy than the judge "saying" it.
Excluding that context is sloppy journalism.
The only authority cited in the article for this autism diagnosis is the judge.
And precisely zero that indicated the judge came to this conclusion themselves. It's doesn't make sense to assume that the judge would come to this conclusion themselves, so blaming the article for leaping to that conclusion doesn't make much sense.
Sloppy journalism from The Guardian here.
Aww, bless :)
wearing only his underwear with hammers
.
and also a teacher that came to help.
Was the teacher also part of the underwear that the boy was wearing?
British Private Schools:
Fagging was a traditional practice in British public schools and also at many other boarding schools, whereby younger pupils were required to act as personal servants to the eldest boys.[1][2][3] Although probably originating earlier, the first accounts of fagging appeared in the late 17th century.[4]: 23 Fagging sometimes involved physical abuse[4]: 23–25 and/or sexual abuse.[5] Although lessening in severity over the centuries, the practice continued in some institutions until the end of the 20th century.[4]: 23–25
Is no one else going to mention the possibility that this kid was severely bullied and abused? I'm not trying to suggest any justification or excuse for attacking sleeping people with hammers, but it is such abnormal behavior that it seems at least possible to me that this kid was driven to extreme violence out of desperation.
Weird kid in a private boarding school, withdrawn, perhaps autistic mostly online.
Reading between the lines there's a pretty good chance that the other kids were mercilessly picking on him.
The zombie invasion line might well have been an attempt to get out of premeditation that he didn't go and grab the hammers to kill them.
He's still squarely in the wrong and definitely needs to be pulled out of society for a very long time and get psychologic help, But I strongly suspect there are some things at play here that aren't being reported on.
Given I haven't met a lot of psychopaths, But I have met plenty of children who have been bullied until they snapped.
A neurodivergent at a private school would never stand a chance.
I agree, and the school should have been ready for that. There is no way they didn't know this was going on.
Crazy in the coconut
But what does that mean
You're a nut!
That boy needs therapy.
He was white as a sheet
And he also made false teeth
This article really requires a "white boy" before all the brits start burning hotels with refugees again
It's a private school, so safe to assume there is a 0% refugee student body.
claimed he was sleepwalking.
This is actually a thing so I wonder how they disproved it
Probably by noticing that he got the hammers ahead of time
Was his name Maxwell?
given his choice of weapon, i'm surprised he didn't "stop!".
I simply can't touch this.
Why is everyone guessing what happened? Is there no way to get the court documents in the UK? I can request all documents related to a case for free here in Sweden.
Not in this case as he is a minor so the records aren’t public.
Wearing boxer shorts?
Where were his Thomas The Tank Engine pyjamas?!
Seriously though; while the boys at state school were a lot harder, if a posh kid finally lost it it was always something extremely psychotic like this.
...in prison? Or just sentenced to having to exist.
Bias in journalism amirite
@MicroWave
"sentenced to life" says the title. Then they say "12 years minimum". Isn't this odd? I'm not familiar with Justice rules in UK, but the second sentence seems contradicting the title...
A life sentence in the UK is distinct from a whole life order. Usually 25-30 years. The 12 year minimum is the length of time before he would be entitled to parole.
Bludgeon School, terrible name choice
Are you just reading what you want to read?