Click Here For
WiredPatrol Site
"You Are a Child of the Universe, No Less than the Trees or the Stars"
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>RETURN TO MESSAGES INDEX  


April 3 2012 at 12:21 AM

A 15 year old does not hammer his mother to death then burn the body without DRUGS.




This message has been edited by SSRIAdmin on Apr 3, 2012 12:25 AM

 Respond to this message   

CHILD Daniel Bartlam: You GPs and Psych drug pushers are COWARDS.

April 3 2012, 12:33 AM

Teenager Daniel Bartlam jailed for killing mother with hammer

Bartlam, who was 14 when he beat his mother to death and burned her body, sentenced to minimum of 16 years

Daniel Bartlam and his mother, Jacqueline
Daniel Bartlam and his mother, Jacqueline. Photograph: Nottinghamshire police/PA

A teenager who beat his mother to death with a hammer and burned her body in a "chilling" murder inspired by a Coronation Street plot has been jailed for at least 16 years.

Daniel Bartlam, who was 14 at the time, initially told police his mother, Jacqueline, had been killed by an intruder at their home in Redhill, Nottingham, on 25 April last year.

He then changed his story, claiming he had killed her after losing control following an argument. But after examining his computer, detectives recovered a deleted story in which a character called Daniel Bartlam killed his mother in the same circumstances.

Nottingham crown court heard the teenager had been inspired by a plot in Coronation Street in which one of the characters, John Stape, killed a woman with a hammer.

Bartlam denied murder, claiming he had been provoked. He was unanimously convicted by a jury in February, and on Monday the judge, Mr Justice Julian Flaux, lifted reporting restrictions to allow the media to name Bartlam.

Jurors had heard how the boy hit his mother seven times with a claw hammer before pouring petrol around her bedroom, placing newspaper on a gas fire and setting the home alight. His mother's body was identified by her dental records.

Sentencing Bartlam to life imprisonment, the judge set a minimum term of 16 years. He described the killing as grotesque and senseless, and said it appeared Bartlam had wanted to "get away with the perfect murder".

Detective Chief Inspector Kate Meynall, who led the investigation, said she had never dealt with such a horrific case. "The level of violence, degree of planning and extent of his lies is not only shocking, but it is also chilling that a boy of 14 could do this," she said.

"This murder has devastated everyone involved. There is only one person who knows why it happened, and Daniel has lied consistently throughout, making attempts to besmirch Jacqueline's character. Everyone who knew her knew she lived for her children and was a warm, loving mother."

She added: "Maybe one day Daniel will tell the truth, as there are several gaps that only he can fill."

Meynall said Bartlam had been arrested after his version of events was contradicted by other witnesses. "We know Daniel spent time planning to kill his mum, and then executed his plan overnight," she said.

"From his computer, we recovered a deleted story about a character called Daniel Bartlam who killed his mother in the exact same circumstances in which Jacqueline was killed."

In a statement released on behalf of the family, Jacqueline Bartlam's parents said Daniel's attempts to depict her as a bad mother "couldn't be further from the truth". She was, they said, "a wonderful, loving and caring woman [who] would always be there to help if anyone was in trouble".

The statement said the family was still struggling to come to terms with what Daniel had done. "We find it so hard to explain what we are going through.

"There are no winners here because not only have we lost Jacqui, but we have lost Daniel too because of what he's done. We know it was the right result at court but trying to understand how a boy you have loved for 14 years can do something like this is so difficult.

"The most difficult part for us and something that only Daniel can answer is 'why?'"


The drug companies could tell you why, and the doctors can tell you why.

How would a 15 year old CHILD be able to tell you why??


 Respond to this message   

So, what drug company bullshit did you believe? That he had ADHD, Depression, psychosis??

April 3 2012, 12:46 AM 

FOR GODS SAKE.  PLEASE GROW UP.  Some of us will never trust a "GP" or any other medical "professional" again because the number of killings are just something none of the rest of us would ever want to be responsible for.

If what you do kills people?  Then you have no right to respect.

 Respond to this message   

TO GPs and PSYCHIATRISTS IN THE UK: Would you buy these cars?

April 3 2012, 1:23 AM 

No you wouldn't, but you prescribe these drugs to 'patients', don't you!



If Pharma made cars

If Pharma made cars, the seat-belt warning signs would be removed, and the beeping noise if you moved without a seat-belt on would be silenced, as the start of a gradual process that would result in seat-belts being removed or made non-functional. The safety-bags would be removed or made ornamental. The car would be turbo-charged. The accelerator would be re-engineered so that the only options were travel at the upper end of the speed limit or faster.

The car would come with a Driver (Dr.). You could not get one without this option. The law would be adjusted so that in the case of any untoward event, legal liability falls on the Dr. rather than the manufacturer.

 There are four types of Dr.

You would have no real choice of car, your Dr. would choose it for you. There are 4 types of Dr. but depending on the country you were living in you might have little or no choice of type of Dr.

One type of Dr. is the Speedy Gonzalez model, who is programmed/trained to put experience over adherence to speed-limits and other regulations, who is likely to attempt exciting maneuvers in the course of travel, and who is imbued with what you might regard either as confidence or foolhardiness. If you voice nervousness at the driving this Dr. is likely to increase speed.

A second type is the Standard Model, who is most concerned with keeping things uncomplicated. Driving is a matter of getting from A to B she is less interested in the onboard gadgets. She keeps an eye on the routes her colleagues take and follows these rather than taking short-cuts or other off-piste options in the face of traffic snarl-ups. This is not done with an eye to liability but it makes her legally invulnerable should anything go wrong.

A third type is the Guidelines-Based Dr. This Dr. has become more popular lately as cars have come with GPS installed to offer the Dr. advice on standardized driving. These computers are supposed to have Ruse Controls installed to manage the tricks that Pharma get up to but the computers are programmed by Pharma. Rigid adherence to the GPS often leads these Drs the wrong way up one way streets once you start paying heed to the onboard voice its difficult to stop.

Finally there is the Traditional Model but this is being phased out, despite being celebrated in Dr. textbooks and routinely invoked by politicians and others.

A Dr. is no good without the latest car

The key personnel in terms of sales at the Trade Fairs, or in the showrooms, have more extensive training than the Drs. These are highly professorial staff whose brief it is to cover different company products but never mention any other form of transport such as bicycles or walking, even though their earlier training included exposure to these other forms of transport. They are central to company efforts to get over two messages one that cars are the way to go what other form of transport comes with a Dr? And at the same time a Dr. is no good without the latest car.

Companies are legally obliged to answer the question Can cars kill? with a Yes. They can usually evade this by answering instead the question Will this car kill me? or Did it kill him? with a No absolutely not if things went wrong it was the Drs fault. But ultimately they depend on their professors (who are carefully managed independent contractors under no legal obligation) to deliver the message Cars Cannot Kill.

 If Philip Morris made drugs..

If Philip Morris made medicines, all available drugs would come with prominent Black Box warnings that this product can kill consistent with the traditional medical view that Every Drug is a Poison, and the Art of Medicine lies in finding the right dose.

There would be a ban on all advertising including Direct to Consumer Adverts. The use of drugs for children would be severely restricted, and exceptional rather than common.

As company products are available over-the-counter rather than on prescription-only, doctors would be openly skeptical of the claimed benefits and would fully support ongoing research to demonstrate the risks. Somewhat more puritanically perhaps some doctors might be expected to attempt to get Philip Morris sponsorship of university activities banned.

 If American Airlines made drugs..

Unlike doctors, pilots have to take the same flight that those in their care take. As a result safety is a real issue for them; if the passenger is injured, the pilot is likely to be also. If American Airlines made medicines, doctors would have to sample all of the medicines they gave to patients. More generally doctors would need extensive retraining on safety issues.

Doctors would have to liaise with colleagues regarding near misses and other events that happen in therapy. The current Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) would be replaced by something closer to the Airline Safety Reporting System (ASRS). Not such a big change in reporting but a world of difference in the way the reports are handled by regulators. AERS reports now dismissed as anecdotes would, like ASRS reports, be taken seriously by regulators Often, such lower-bound estimates are all that decision makers need to determine that a problem exists and requires attention.

If the case of a drug disaster, the regulatory agency responsible for letting a drug on the market would not be one charged with investigating the problem. An independent Drug Safety Board would be set up.

The emphasis placed at present on the efficacy of drugs would be replaced by a focus on their safety. Airlines do not compete on the basis of who can get me to Kansas 30 minutes earlier. If an airline is perceived as being less likely to get me to Kansas safely it goes out of business.

 Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>RETURN TO MESSAGES INDEX  

Visit RxISK ORG from Data Based Medicine
'the first free website (not sponsored by big pharma or advertising) for patients
and their doctors to research, and more importantly, easily report drug side effects'.