Jump to content
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

British woman beheaded in Tenerife. Royals fault.


Guest Peter Dow

Safer streets or safer royals?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Royalists get innocents killed so who would you rather be beheaded or killed?

    • Let the innocents be killed. (Status quo)
    • Let the royals be killed. (Republican revolution)


Recommended Posts

_52724051_011975708-1.jpg

Jennifer Mills-Westley

BBC: Beheaded UK woman Jennifer Mills-Westley 'sought help'

The British woman stabbed and beheaded in a shop on the Spanish island of Tenerife had sought help minutes before the attack, reports suggest.

The Sunday Times reports that Jennifer Mills-Westley, 60, went into an employment centre, telling officials she was being followed.

After a man was sent away she went to a nearby shop, where she was attacked.

A Bulgarian man, 28, was arrested after the attack in Los Cristianos on Friday and is due in court on Monday.

The man had been detained by police several times for previous aggressive attacks.

...

Dominica Fernandez, of the Regional Interior Ministry, said the attack appeared to be random and that the suspect was well known in the area.

Regional newspaper La Opinion said the suspect had received treatment at the psychiatric unit of a local hospital in February after being involved in previous violent incidents.

Edited by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

_52724051_011975708-1.jpg

Jennifer Mills-Westley

Two main points.

  • Bad government had allowed a dangerous madman out into society who should have been locked up in a prison or in a secure psychiatric hospital.

  • Bad government had prevented good political activists from protesting in a very high profile way against the decisions and the rule of the bad government.

Analysis explaining why this beheading is the royals fault

Tenerife is ruled as part of the Spanish Kingdom ruled by King Juan Carlos often deputised by the Spanish Crown Prince Felipe, Prince of Asturias.

kjc.jpg

King Juan Carlos of Spain (Knight of the Order of the Garter of the United Kingdom)

spain1.jpg

Queen Elizabeth with King Juan Carlos in 1988.

princefelipearmymuseum.jpg

The Spanish Crown Prince Felipe, Prince of Asturias. (Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order of the United Kingdom)

DSC02773.JPG

The beheading of the innocent British woman Jennifer Mills-Westley is the fault of the UK and Spanish royals.

Firstly, it is the fault of the UK monarchy, the ministers and officers of the kingdom for not warning unsuspecting British tourists that they are not safe in Tenerife or anywhere where there is not good government, which is most places in the world.

Every facility is given by the UK authorities to assist tourist agencies in Britain to spread their propaganda about so-called "nice and safe" places to visit and to stay while ignoring the very real dangers of bad government allowing dangerous people to roam free yet not allowing republican or democratic political activists the right to protest about that poor government and I mean protesting in a very high profile way, such as on TV, 24/7 and upstaging royalist events such as royal weddings.

Secondly, this beheading is the fault of the monarchy of Spain, the ministers and officers of Tenerife for not making the streets safe for citizens and tourists alike and it is their fault for disallowing very high profile protesting against bad government.

It needs to pointed out that had concerned persons either in Britain, Tenerife, or Spain protested too loudly about the incompetent governments of those countries, the protestors are the ones who would have been locked up in prison or sectioned in a mental hospital, not the Bulgarian man in Tenerife who did the beheading.

All across the world, kingdoms promote incompetent royalist loyalists for election to government.

In many republics of the world, such as the USA, there is funding for foolish candidates to election who are sympathetic to foreign royalty and have no intention of assisting foreign republicans to overthrow the monarchies and kingdoms they rule over.

Foolish government by royalists or by fools who like or tolerate the royals is causing innocents to be killed.

The only way to make the world safe for tourism is to have republican revolutions across the world to end all kingdoms and in republics, to impeach from office foolish presidents or governors who think the royals are doing a good job.

If foolish elected politicians think that the royals are doing a good job then we must presume they will do equally as bad a job as the royals are doing, endangering the lives of people in the republics, which is grounds for removal for incompetence under a good republican constitution.

The For Freedom Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh, the OP is just nuts!

He advocates the US as a better system than ours and then states this killing is because of a crap government under a monarch forgetting the US has the most killings on Earth and the most mass murderers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constitutionally yes, the USA is better than the UK.

It is a republic. Since what is needed is good presidents insisting on good government and democratic constitutional freedoms for the people to protest when they think it isn't good government, the US is further down that road because it is at least a republic, is electing presidents, maybe not good presidents recently but it could happen any election soon.

A crap monarch too.

No I don't forget about the killings and murders in the US. This is down to bad government, and poor presidents failing to insist on democratic freedoms.

For example, many killings in the US are down to poor people not getting social security, nor the freedom to protest about that and many feeling they have no option but to turn to crime.

Many killings are due to the flood of guns in the population due to a failure by the US President and the US courts properly to interpret the US Constitution which allows the right to bear arms only as part of a well-regulated militia.

The US National Rifle Association bangs on about the right to bear arms conveniently for gun-manufacturers and sellers and criminals forgetting all about the well-regulated militia part.

Some killings in the US are due to incompetence in the psychiatric profession who are mostly no better than quack doctors, have no idea who is who, who is sane, who is mad, are threatening perfectly sane people with sectioning yet letting very dangerous people go free.

In the US as with the UK, there is a over-reliance on so-called "anti-psychotic" medicines when mad people can't be "cured" because the brain is too complex and a broken brain is not fixable.

Also "anti-psychotic" drugs are poorly named. They are anti-activity, pro-apathy drugs. Give a normal person anti-psychotics (and it does happen) and the normal person becomes very apathetic about their life.

What is needed for mad people is straight-jackets and padded rooms, maybe sedatives for some but not anti-psychotics which make humans apathetic about everything.

Imagine if zoos gave tigers anti-psychotics instead of cages. How kind is that to the tiger to have it knocked out in a daze not wanting to eat or walk or anything but lie still? Who would come to watch a tiger asleep?

How safe is that when the anti-psychotic wears off and the tiger awakens in a hell of a rage but not in a cage?

Now anti-psychotics are not used to control tigers and they should not be used to control mad people either.

Sadly modern psychiatry does use inappropriate drugs very often, on both sides of the Atlantic. The drugs manufacturers make lots of profits but it doesn't really help the patient nor make people safe.

Also anti-drugs, anti-quack psychiatry campaigners are not allowed the freedom to protest either, because neither the UK monarch nor the US president will defend the right to protest about that or anything where there is no votes in it for the politicians.

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

while I agree that drugs are given out too freely for all sorts of mental health conditions, and not just psychosis, and I agree that some anti psychotics dampen down emotions, padded cells are not the way forward.

Edited by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who are not allowed to campaign and protest loudly are those who are under threat of being sectioned themselves. In fact, the very fact that they are shouting loudly about the incompetence of psychiatry is seen by officialdom as "proof" of their mental instability.

hi Peter,

is this comment something about yourself personally?

Cos while I can understand that what you've written might be an issue in some circumstances, there might be other reasons why you personally are under threat of being sectioned - such as you thinking that a random vicious murder by a person in Tenerife is somehow the royal family's direct fault, as you've said when starting this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine yourself in the position of a sane, healthy, wrong-diagnosed-as-mentally-ill, sectioned person under the threat of forcible medication which would cause real brain-damage to your healthy brain.

Under those circumstances you would like to have the right to refuse medication and given the choice you would rather opt for the padded cell meantime until you could get a competent doctor, lawyer, human-rights campaigner, politician to get you the hell out of there.

What you would really, really hate is some smart-arse psychiatrist and judge saying "padded cells are not the way forward" :angry: and ordering that you be injected with anti-psychotics which wreck your health and turn you from a healthy person into a drooling vegetable for your enemies to laugh at. :(

Outside psychiatry but inside the system, recognised by some part of the establishment as someone who had a right or expectation to get on TV, their letters published in newspapers, to be able to speak at universities and so on.

The people who are not allowed to campaign and protest loudly are those who are under threat of being sectioned themselves. In fact, the very fact that they are shouting loudly about the incompetence of psychiatry is seen by officialdom as "proof" of their mental instability.

We need a very good president of a republic to sack such officials and defend the right of concerned citizens to speak out, to protest, to shout, to make a fuss, even if the officials absolutely hate and despise being so confronted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol::lol::lol:

So Peter, if it's good government that will stop innocents being killed, could not a good government under a good monarch do the same?

Edited by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does a kingdom get itself a "good monarch"? A person who is thought to be a "good monarch" to some people would be thought to be a "bad monarch" to others. Some republicans would say "any monarch is a bad monarch".

Right now, many people think Queen Elizabeth is a "good monarch". Right now, many people say "God save the Queen". It means nothing in terms of having a monarch who actually does a good job of head of state in terms of defending people's freedoms. It just means that many people think a monarch who just smiles and waves and lets the government and parliament do whatever the hell they want is a "good monarch"! :P

There is a real job of head of state to be done and I suppose in a fairy tale there could be a good king or queen who in that fairy tale did a much better job than other kings or queens would do, and maybe even a better job than the worst presidents would do.

Real life is not a fairy tale however. This is not "once upon a time". This is here and now and "good monarchs" don't really exist.

Even supposing a monarch is not too bad for a while, he or she would get older and less capable, maybe wouldn't want to retire and would want to insist on going on doing a bad job, or if they did abdicate in favour of the next in the line to throne, the successor could be much worse.

It is unreasonable and medieval thinking to think that a monarch would be likely to be better as head of state than a president who stood for election and had the confidence of the people and at least a significant minority in parliament supporting him or her as head of state.

If a king or queen was that good surely he or she would insist on reforming the kingdom into a republic, abolish the monarchy, helping to set up a republican constitution defining presidential elections and the duties of an elected president as head of state.

If the then ex-king or ex-queen wanted to stand for president they could I suppose. That is what I would do if had been born king, I think, I hope.

The reality is of kings or queens who are comfortable with the very undemocratic way they became head of state would be likely to support other undemocratic ways of doing things in the land.

No, the fairy tale story of a "good monarch" is a non-starter for real politics.

Likewise, if you got a "good government" under a monarch, good or bad, the good government would set about changing the constitution from a kingdom into a republic and would want to replace the monarch with a president.

A so-called "good government" which is happy with a monarch is likely to be bad government and it likes having a monarch there because the monarch allows the government to be as bad as it likes, calling itself "good", locking up anyone who calls the government "bad".

No any government which is happy with a monarch, wants to keep the monarchy is pretty much guaranteed to be a bad government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine yourself in the position of a sane, healthy, wrong-diagnosed-as-mentally-ill, sectioned person under the threat of forcible medication which would cause real brain-damage to your healthy brain.

Under those circumstances you would like to have the right to refuse medication and given the choice you would rather opt for the padded cell meantime until you could get a competent doctor, lawyer, human-rights campaigner, politician to get you the hell out of there.

What you would really, really hate is some smart-arse psychiatrist and judge saying "padded cells are not the way forward" :angry: and ordering that you be injected with anti-psychotics which wreck your health and turn you from a healthy person into a drooling vegetable for your enemies to laugh at. :(

Edited by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...