Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

knucklehead6

Penfailed wrote: »

You've just asked a pile of questions that are unrelated to the post l was responding to. The OP said that she removed the mask, had her fingers all over it and then put it back on. That didn't happen.

The post you were responding to is related to the video of her bullying an elderly man into removing his mask.

Those questions are about the video of her bullying an elderly man into removing his mask.

Now, unless there are lots of videos of Queen Cnut bullying elderly men into removing their masks this is the same incident.

And if there are many videos of Queen Cnut bullying elderly men into removing their masks, well then i think you and the rest of the spinnys have a bigger problem than trying to put them in a positive light

Guy:Incognito

PhoneMain wrote: »

Well then we should lock up Donald Trump so.

.

Agreed

humberklog

knucklehead6 wrote: »

The post you were responding to is related to the video of her bullying an elderly man into removing his mask.

Those questions are about the video of her bullying an elderly man into removing his mask.

Now, unless there are lots of videos of Queen Cnut bullying elderly men into removing their masks this is the same incident.

And if there are many videos of Queen Cnut bullying elderly men into removing their masks, well then i think you and the rest of the spinnys have a bigger problem than trying to put them in a positive light

I'm a bit lost and confused about the recent discussion and I'm only quoting your post to try keep it relevant to my question-

Wasn't all the recent chat here sparked from a poster's point of view that Gemma's behaviour and actions are enough for an intervention by the state on her (and the public's) behalf to commit her for psychiatric treatment?

And then a doctor pointed out that that wouldn't and shouldn't happen (to which I agree) and then we're here in the discussion?

Just trying to keep up.

knucklehead6

humberklog wrote: »

I'm a bit lost and confused about the recent discussion and I'm only quoting your post to try keep it relevant to my question-

Wasn't all the recent chat here sparked from a poster's point of view that Gemma's behaviour and actions are enough for an intervention by the state on her (and the public's) behalf to commit her for psychiatric treatment?

And then a doctor pointed out that that wouldn't and shouldn't happen (to which I agree) and then we're here in the discussion?

Just trying to keep up.

Yup, I think that's a roughly fair summation of things.
I think I'm the one that made the video chat resurface as I disagreed with the Dr Phonemain that she wasn't putting others in harms way, and I used the video as an example of that.

Penfailed

knucklehead6 wrote: »

The post you were responding to is related to the video of her bullying an elderly man into removing his mask.

Those questions are about the video of her bullying an elderly man into removing his mask.

Now, unless there are lots of videos of Queen Cnut bullying elderly men into removing their masks this is the same incident.

And if there are many videos of Queen Cnut bullying elderly men into removing their masks, well then i think you and the rest of the spinnys have a bigger problem than trying to put them in a positive light

Sorry, where was I trying to put her in a positive light? She's an abhorrent woman.

knucklehead6

Penfailed wrote: »

Sorry, where was I trying to put her in a positive light? She's an abhorrent woman.

I must've picked you up wrongly so, when you were suggesting that watching the full video of her bullying an elderly man into taking off his mask has a different spin than the edited version posted here.

My apologies.

ohnonotgmail

Article in the latest Phoenix magazine about Gemma and one of her british chums. He spoke when she was having her protest outside google. His name is Paul Rimmer and he is formerly of the british national party. He did a video about the history of the british empire in Ireland where he says

The Irish have got to be grateful for what we did there

Gemma does choose some odd friends

Nokia6230i

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Article in the latest Phoenix magazine about Gemma and one of her british chums. He spoke when she was having her protest outside google. His name is Paul Rimmer and he is formerly of the british national party. He did a video about the history of the british empire in Ireland where he says



Gemma does choose some odd friends

Her right hand Dolores was on one of her Periscope TV Broadcasts recently (last week sometime; sadly she doesn't categorise them under topics so you've to go through them & it's excruciating listening on a "good" day...) totally denying this; Comical Ali stuff!

Think she was maintaining that he just happened to be in the area on a tour or something and they didn't actually meet etc.

Birneybau

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Article in the latest Phoenix magazine about Gemma and one of her british chums. He spoke when she was having her protest outside google. His name is Paul Rimmer and he is formerly of the british national party. He did a video about the history of the british empire in Ireland where he says



Gemma does choose some odd friends

Sure, Tan Torino is Irish and JOINED the British Army. Grifter.

AngryHippie

PhoneMain wrote: »

And by the way, I'm a doctor and I'm not willing to diagnose her based on her public utterances, nor am I willing to speculate about it........because it's unethical. Maybe you have more psychiatry experience than me.....which if you do, also makes it unethical for you to speculate about her mental health unless you've assessed/treated her.......which is even more unethical!!!!

I didn't take any oaths or sign any code of conduct or ethical charter.

Its pretty obvious that the lady is not 100%. Not just from her public utterances, but from her behavior, from the people she surrounds herself with, the people she targets, the absolute nonsense that she tries to legitimize and give platforms to.

In consideration of her history, she has spiralled from being a respected journalist in a national paper to a fringe leader of a tinfoil hat brigade that can't even survive on media platforms with VERY lax terms and conditions.

To say that its unethical to speculate that she might be struggling with a mental health issue is of course your role as a mental health professional.
The dog on the street can something is amiss and that she probably needs help with it.

(Yes, I'm aware that help won't work unless she wants help and that the probable nature of what she is dealing with would more or less require a complete mental breakdown before she would acknowledge a problem or accept help)
I think this is a significant problem with both the provision of mental health services and the current legislation that there isn't any mechanism of help, advice or intervention short of going nuclear after an incident.

PhoneMain

AngryHippie wrote: »

I didn't take any oaths or sign any code of conduct or ethical charter.

Its pretty obvious that the lady is not 100%. Not just from her public utterances, but from her behavior, from the people she surrounds herself with, the people she targets, the absolute nonsense that she tries to legitimize and give platforms to.

In consideration of her history, she has spiralled from being a respected journalist in a national paper to a fringe leader of a tinfoil hat brigade that can't even survive on media platforms with VERY lax terms and conditions.

To say that its unethical to speculate that she might be struggling with a mental health issue is of course your role as a mental health professional.
The dog on the street can something is amiss and that she probably needs help with it.

(Yes, I'm aware that help won't work unless she wants help and that the probable nature of what she is dealing with would more or less require a complete mental breakdown before she would acknowledge a problem or accept help)
I think this is a significant problem with both the provision of mental health services and the current legislation that there isn't any mechanism of help, advice or intervention short of going nuclear after an incident.

Its derived from the UN Human Rights Charter. If someone doesnt want to do something, they are perfectly within their rights to not do that. This can include life saving treatment. Just because you deem her to have mental health issues does not give you the right to force treatment on her. This is nothing to do with provision of mental health services and all about people and their human rights.

ohnonotgmail

PhoneMain wrote: »

Its derived from the UN Human Rights Charter. If someone doesnt want to do something, they are perfectly within their rights to not do that. This can include life saving treatment. Just because you deem her to have mental health issues does not give you the right to force treatment on her. This is nothing to do with provision of mental health services and all about people and their human rights.

The only people who have the right to force treatment on her are medical professionals. we all know that. Nobody is suggesting that a member of the public commit her.

PhoneMain

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The only people who have the right to force treatment on her are medical professionals. we all know that. Nobody is suggesting that a member of the public commit her.

Yes and the point I'm trying to make is that even medical professionals are only allowed to force treatment on someone in limited circumstances - which, based on her utterings on social media, Gemma is a long way from, despite how much anyone dislikes it.

ohnonotgmail

PhoneMain wrote: »

Yes and the point I'm trying to make is that even medical professionals are only allowed to force treatment on someone in limited circumstances - which, based on her utterings on social media, Gemma is a long way from, despite how much anyone dislikes it.

we know the criteria, it has been posted multiple times. We disagree on how close she comes to meeting those criteria.

PhoneMain

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we know the criteria, it has been posted multiple times. We disagree on how close she comes to meeting those criteria.

Dont let your own feelings get in the way of facts.

ohnonotgmail

PhoneMain wrote: »

Dont let your own feelings get in the way of facts.

what are the facts, do you think?

PhoneMain

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what are the facts, do you think?

The facts are that I have not seen anything on social media, in my professional opinion, that would warrant sectioning under the mental health act. Nor would any other medical professional I'd imagine consider her behaviour sectionable. But if you want to lock up someone for touching another person on the face then that's your opinion I suppose.

ohnonotgmail

PhoneMain wrote: »

The facts are that I have not seen anything on social media, in my professional opinion, that would warrant sectioning under the mental health act. Nor would any other medical professional I'd imagine consider her behaviour sectionable. But if you want to lock up someone for touching another person on the face then that's your opinion I suppose.

I never said she should be. The district court generally doesn't give custodial sentences for assault to women. the question is is she a danger to others and i think she very much is. Maybe not by means of direct assault but by what she inspires others to do.

PhoneMain

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I never said she should be. The district court generally doesn't give custodial sentences for assault to women. the question is is she a danger to others and i think she very much is. Maybe not by means of direct assault but by what she inspires others to do.

I'm talking about detaining a person against their will under the mental health act which would allow someone to be treated against their will. To force treatment on someone, you have to detain them in a psychiatric hospital. When someone is on about giving mental health treatment to another person who doesnt want it, then detention in a psychiatric hospital is what that entails.

marieholmfan

Penfailed wrote: »

Sorry, where was I trying to put her in a positive light? She's an abhorrent woman.

She's mentally ill rather than deliberately wicked (in my opinion).

PhoneMain wrote: »

I'm talking about detaining a person against their will under the mental health act which would allow someone to be treated against their will. To force treatment on someone, you have to detain them in a psychiatric hospital. When someone is on about giving mental health treatment to another person who doesnt want it, then detention in a psychiatric hospital is what that entails.

If it's the best thing for her than perhaps that should happen. There's no framework for it though. She isn't really a danger to herself.

owlbethere

Are these eejits still marching around the streets crying about the lockdown and masks and shouting about 'freedom'.

Such nonsense and I don't know why they bother wasting their time. We are in lockdown but we are still free and many of us are using our heads and are glad to curtail non essential stuff so that we can hopefully come out healthy without disease. Many of us still are free.

Thankfully the government doesn't listen to this minority and basing pandemic measures on the wishes of a group who only have one aim and that is to spread disease.

I'm not a huge fan of this winter lockdown but I'm getting on with it and jot wasting my time marching around the streets.

Eric Cartman

marieholmfan wrote: »

She's mentally ill rather than deliberately wicked (in my opinion).




If it's the best thing for her than perhaps that should happen. There's no framework for it though. She isn't really a danger to herself.

I would absolutely agree with this. I think most people deep down probably know this is the reason for her behaviour. If she was a man I don't think people would be of this opinion (people rarely give the benefit of the doubt of mental competency to men in that regard) , but an assessment definitely should be done.

Annasopra

marieholmfan wrote: »

She's mentally ill rather than deliberately wicked (in my opinion).

If it's the best thing for her than perhaps that should happen. There's no framework for it though. She isn't really a danger to herself.

I dont know if any of that is true or not.

walshb

The mentally ill angle is just the usual cop put

I think she is just one arrogant unlikable unpleasant devious conniving sullen nasty woman..

She could, also, be mentally ill....on top of the above!

AndrewJRenko

marieholmfan wrote: »

She's mentally ill rather than deliberately wicked (in my opinion).

There is also the possibility that this is a desperate career move for her - a deliberate attempt to capture the market of extreme right wingers and attract funding from at home and abroad.

NovemberWren

by no means am I a fan of the Gardai. - sometimes though one wonders are they now, the victims of a culture that they, 'formerly', espoused.?

at Gemma's website there is a video of GPO/Gardai/protestors; something like, 'Gestapo' ........ then 'gardai'.
- not really sure this is accurate?

seems to me, Gardai, [formerly], were? and are/can be - subtly blackmailed, by: local Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein; Labour? -
mainly to oversee what local power-needy politicians want.

The Gardai are, - workers and in a union? They have accessed a very good and interesting job;- and some of these 'local' politicians....... begrudge them that???

btw - the Gestapo in Germany were, in fact, Thugs?, that were organised. And the comparison here would be: Sinn Fein.

PhoneMain

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is also the possibility that this is a desperate career move for her - a deliberate attempt to capture the market of extreme right wingers and attract funding from at home and abroad.

Exactly. Katie Hopkins says a lot of the same sort things as Gemma and I think nearly says worse stuff given that she knows she could speak to millions given her previous Twitter platform, radio show and column but I dont think anyone would accuse her of mental illness......she's just a cnut.

ohnonotgmail

PhoneMain wrote: »

Exactly. Katie Hopkins says a lot of the same sort things as Gemma and I think nearly says worse stuff given that she knows she could speak to millions given her previous Twitter platform, radio show and column but I dont think anyone would accuse her of mental illness......she's just a cnut.

Hopkins doesn't take it to the streets and assault people.

PhoneMain

NovemberWren wrote: »

by no means am I a fan of the Gardai. - sometimes though one wonders are they now, the victims of a culture that they, 'formerly', espoused.?

at Gemma's website there is a video of GPO/Gardai/protestors; something like, 'Gestapo' ........ then 'gardai'.
- not really sure this is accurate?

seems to me, Gardai, [formerly], were? and are/can be - subtly blackmailed, by: local Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein; Labour? -
mainly to oversee what local power-needy politicians want.

The Gardai are, - workers and in a union? They have accessed a very good and interesting job;- and some of these 'local' politicians....... begrudge them that???

btw - the Gestapo in Germany were, in fact, Thugs?, that were organised. And the comparison here would be: Sinn Fein.

What?

ohnonotgmail

NovemberWren wrote: »

by no means am I a fan of the Gardai. - sometimes though one wonders are they now, the victims of a culture that they, 'formerly', espoused.?

at Gemma's website there is a video of GPO/Gardai/protestors; something like, 'Gestapo' ........ then 'gardai'.
- not really sure this is accurate?

seems to me, Gardai, [formerly], were? and are/can be - subtly blackmailed, by: local Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein; Labour? -
mainly to oversee what local power-needy politicians want.

The Gardai are, - workers and in a union? They have accessed a very good and interesting job;- and some of these 'local' politicians....... begrudge them that???

btw - the Gestapo in Germany were, in fact, Thugs?, that were organised. And the comparison here would be: Sinn Fein.

What?