3 Year old Child thrown into Crocodile Pit in UK

I'm not - I see your ally @eightieschewbaccy has thanked your post, if only I could have got odds on that on a prediction market.

I don't have any agenda to promote and I'm not trying to promote any website. I have said previously that I know several people who have suffered harm from medical treatment, equally I know many more, including myself, who have good stories to tell. Unfortunately media coverage likes to tell the good stories, with very little examination of the complexity of mental health problems (it's often seen as problem>precise diagnosis>prescription>problem solved), the range of responses to medical treatment, and the devastation when things go wrong.

If you bothered to browse that site, you'll see that it was set up by an award winning investigative journalist, formerly of the Boston Globe. His work led him to wonder why, given the huge increase in the prescription of psychotropic drugs, the number of people on disability benefit due to mental health problems was also increasing hugely. He had no skin in the game, no axe to grind, he just went where the evidence led him. He wrote some articles and later a book,"Anatomy of an Epidemic". I read that book, it's excellent and scary in equal measure. There are over 700 carefully researched references - in the 16 years since publication, nobody has produced any evidence to rebut even one of those resources, nobody has complained of being misquoted, nobody has pointed out any factual inaccuracies and nobody has sued. What has happened is that Whitaker has been the subject of many ad hominem attacks, including this recent one:

https://www.madinamerica.com/2026/05/psychiarys-attack-dog-is-at-it-again/

As for having an agenda, well, I think that's pretty much universal for websites, Whitaker is transparent about his, and there are a very wide range of viewpoints aired. I find a lot of the content overly spiritual and a bit woo-woo in places, but there are many scientific studies and reports as well as personal testimonies which are worth the effort of reading, even if they make me despair for humanity at times.

I commented, not to try to get some mileage out of a horrific event, but because some posters posted perfectly reasonable views about how intellectually impaired and/or mentally ill people should be managed. I just posted to add something to the picture.

To be clear I think this incident was awful, likewise the Tate Gallery and Valdo Calocane - here's an IT article relating to the Irish connection to the latter event:

I also think it's awful that there are people moving freely in society who are likely to inflict terrible violence on others.

I also think it's awful that people can be detained against their will, having committed no crime, but having been adjudged dangerous by a system that has made them that way.

I don't know how we resolve the conflict between the latter two categories.

I strongly suspect that your response to my post is motivated not by anything I said, or anything contained in the websites I linked (how could anyone who likes to be kind to minorities have a problem with websites advocating for better mental health outcomes?), but rather by the fact that I've challenged you on here on many occasions, pointing out inconsistencies in your positions and the gap between your demands for others to stand up their arguments and your own unwillingness or inability to do likewise. You even called me a liar on one occasion. To date, you have not responded meaningfully to any of those challenges. I'd be happy for you to outline why I'm wrong on this occasion, preferably with specifics.

The accusation that I'm trying in any way to gain from a near tragedy is a new low, but unfortunately not surprising at all.

Edited to fix typos.

Also to add: anyone interested in the mental health area should google Carrie Weston Clark, Laura Delano and/or Katinka Blackford Newman (beware, she writes for the Daily Mail😱) - there are many with similar stories.

So, yet again you are not going to engage with the content of my posts. I have no connection with the Mad in America website - I pay $20 per year as a voluntary contribution to enable me to read all the content (I believe they will grant full access to those who genuinely can't afford it) and I'm happy to support their efforts to publicise a range of opinions along with factual articles and podcasts on the topic of mental health.

You've accused me of shilling - can you provide evidence please, or have the decency to retract the allegation?

I'm putting this in a post rather than editing the previous one - you appear triggered by my earlier edit, despite the fact that I put it at the top and called attention to it.

I fully agree that the behaviour you seek to ascribe to me is reprehensible - that is it would be rotten if I did it, but I didn't. I merely linked to an article and provided a source for further reading- pretty common and accepted behaviour on here.

Now, coming onto a thread purely to attack a poster who has challenged your posts in the past, now that is rotten behaviour. I note you haven't responded to my accusation. The silence is telling.

I agree with this and your previous post using the word dump. While blunt language will offend many, it's important not to sugar-coat the message: care for vulnerable people is often a mess. And your post makes my earlier point well - my experience of seeing how some people close to me were treated by the system prompted me to read a little bit about healthcare, and what I found was very depressing.

It's clear that you and I are aligned in believing that healthcare leaves a lot to be desired, in fact that belief led Whitaker to set up the website you accused me of shilling for, so you have now demonstrated that you are aligned with his "agenda". Proof that your OP was purely a personal attack.

I don't agree that it's just a question of funding however, even though more funding is needed. We went from a 4 billion spend to 20 billion in a fairly short period in Ireland with no demonstrable improvement in standards of care. To fix things will require a willingness to challenge accepted practices and take on vested interests. I'm not holding my breath for a solution.

Who's Ronnie Pickering?

Just talking in general terms here: I recently read something about holding strong opinions, and the importance of always asking yourself what evidence would cause you to change your point of view. If the answer is none, then you are an ideologue.