Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Net Plan Gets Boost

by Guest Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:12 pm

First topic message reminder :

It is hoped a net made of stainless steel cable extending below and from the side of the span will save hundreds of lives.

Officials say they have funds to build a suicide-prevention net at San Francisco Bay's Golden Gate Bridge where two jump to their deaths each month.

The bridge's board of directors will vote on Friday on the plan, which has been debated since the 1950s.

One of the obstacles - the price tag - fell away on Monday as officials announced they had $76m (£45m) for the project.

Most of the new money comes from federal transport programmes, while the rest will be paid out of the bridge's own reserves and state mental health funding.

The bridge district's plan calls for a net made of stainless steel cable extending 20ft below and 20ft from the side of the span.

Anyone who jumps from the span might be injured but would probably survive the fall, say officials.

"For whatever reason, suicidal people don't want to hurt themselves," Dennis Mulligan, the bridge district's general manager, told KTVU-TV.

"At other locations where nets have been up no individual has jumped into the net."

More than 1,400 people have leapt to their deaths from the 4,200-ft suspension bridge since it opened in 1937.

Every year, scores of people contemplating suicide are coaxed not to jump from the span.

On average, there are two suicides a month at the structure.

The Bridge Rail Foundation, which tracks fatalities on the span, said 46 people committed suicide there last year.

Backers of the suicide net were boosted in 2012 when President Barack Obama signed a transportation bill allowing federal funds to flow to the project.

http://news.sky.com/story/1288528/golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost

Good idea, if people want to kill themselves they don't want to do something that will hurt them but not kill them, so it sounds logical.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:35 am

You know your a idiot....right

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:36 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Well I find it interesting that my previous Boss was called Len when I was a Planner and then you state a Len I would get a 3 from Len as in a score mark.

Coincidence or the fact you know how to hack into accounts?

Well maybe we now know who was the guilty party on the PM's I guess.

HAHAHAHAHAH .........................

So by your laughter is your admission, excellent I shall put this forward as proof to forum motion.

Happy days, someone is now fucked

You do realise this is a criminal offense?

I shall also get into contact with Len, to see if anything is amiss with his account also.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:37 am

Go on go on do another one ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: ::D::

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:40 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:Go on go on do another one ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: ::D::

I have reported this, we know you are an IT expert, I still have access to my old work email account which is with Google.

You really fucked up here and all can see it as well.

Not concerned as have nothing to hide but at least we now know where some of the problems are coming from

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:42 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAH .........................

So by your laughter is your admission, excellent I shall put this forward as proof to forum motion.

Happy days, someone is now fucked

You do realise this is a criminal offense?

I shall also get into contact with Len, to see if anything is amiss with his account also.

Yes you should do that i am always happy to help the authorities with malicious communications and hacking attempts or accusations of such they will obviously need details and am happy to supply them along with the network trafic log of my server .....so have at it i have nothing to hide and silly threats from a person who has been trounced are just the bitter after taste of a sad old man

by Ben Reilly Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:44 am

Cut it out, guys!

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:46 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Cut it out, guys!

Morning ....Evening for you i guess

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:46 am

Excellent, It is no silly threat either.

We now know where the problems are coming from, it makes sense as well with the PM's being as you know those involved with.

All the parts are falling into place.

Any how as seen you are clearly part of some pathetic sassy gang, you cannot refute my points on suicide also, you just keep going off a report which even the experts claims has flaws.

So let me know when you are going to counter them and answer them instead of avoiding for pages

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:48 am

Didge wrote:Excellent, It is no silly threat either.

We now know where the problems are coming from, it makes sense as well with the PM's being as you know those involved with.

All the parts are sinking into place.

Any how as seen you are clearly part of some pathetic sassy gang, you cannot refute my points on suicide also, you just keep going off a report which even the experts claims has flaws.

So let me know when you are going to counter them and answer them instead of avoiding for pages

perhaps you should also take this accusation up with Ben also

by Ben Reilly Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:48 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Cut it out, guys!
Morning ....Evening for you i guess

Morning for me too (nearly 1 a.m.) ... I'm going to let you gents duke it out, I think highly of both you guys and hate to see this fight. I'm signing out for now, please show me that you guys are the men I think you to be! Smile

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:50 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:Excellent, It is no silly threat either.

We now know where the problems are coming from, it makes sense as well with the PM's being as you know those involved with.

All the parts are sinking into place.

Any how as seen you are clearly part of some pathetic sassy gang, you cannot refute my points on suicide also, you just keep going off a report which even the experts claims has flaws.

So let me know when you are going to counter them and answer them instead of avoiding for pages
perhaps you should also take this accusation up with Ben also

I have thanks, I did that earlier.

Now I shall leave it for others to see for themselves.

You really fucked up

So again you go off a report as stated even admitted by the experts it has flaws.

I show evidence from safety nets in place which did not change levels of suicide, that is factual evidence.

Thus you have failed to address any of my points

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:50 am

Oh, it's your argument sinking and really fast i might add resorting to childish accusations and threats
Dear me, how the mighty have fallen or decsended in your case

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:52 am

No as seen I have moved on to allow those to deal with, so again you cannot refute my points:

So again you go off a report as stated even admitted by the experts it has flaws.

I showed evidence from safety nets in place which did not change levels of suicide, that is factual evidence.

Thus you have failed to address any of my points

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:55 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
perhaps you should also take this accusation up with Ben also

I have thanks, I did that earlier.

Now I shall leave it for others to see for themselves.

You really fucked up

So again you go off a report as stated even admitted by the experts it has flaws.

I show evidence from safety nets in place which did not change levels of suicide, that is factual evidence.

Thus you have failed to address any of my points

really well good although he hasn`t asked me anything about it ....how very odd ...perhaps tomorrow Eh when he has stoped laughing
in the mean time while i wait for a knock on the door from the home office

minor reservation actually not flaws

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:58 am

Didge wrote:No as seen I have moved on to allow those to deal with, so again you cannot refute my points:

So again you go off a report as stated even admitted by the experts it has flaws.

I showed evidence from safety nets in place which did not change levels of suicide, that is factual evidence.

Thus you have failed to address any of my points

well i have already proved seeing the answer to your question is impossible for you you seem to see something entirely different to everybody else ....it has to be neurological

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:58 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

I have thanks, I did that earlier.

Now I shall leave it for others to see for themselves.

You really fucked up

So again you go off a report as stated even admitted by the experts it has flaws.

I show evidence from safety nets in place which did not change levels of suicide, that is factual evidence.

Thus you have failed to address any of my points
really well good although he hasn`t asked me anything about it ....how very odd ...perhaps tomorrow Eh when he has stoped laughing
in the mean time while i wait for a knock on the door from the home office

minor reservation actually not flaws

Seems you stillwish to go on about this, talk about guilty complex as well, excellent.

So again I am still waiting for you to actually address all my points, after so many pages now, all you sassy, and Irn can off is a some experts who admit their report has flaws.

Mine showed a dramatic increase elsewhere of suicide jumps away from the Bridge with safety nets, in fact double what it was before

Allyou have done is evade my points because as seen you have not the first clue what you are talking about that was evident when you missed their own admission of flaws at the end, they as I stated pages back failed to discount other facitors

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:59 am

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:No as seen I have moved on to allow those to deal with, so again you cannot refute my points:

So again you go off a report as stated even admitted by the experts it has flaws.

I showed evidence from safety nets in place which did not change levels of suicide, that is factual evidence.

Thus you have failed to address any of my points

well i have already proved seeing the answer to your question is impossible for you you seem to see something entirely different to everybody else ....it has to be neurological

Still no counter to my points, just more bullshit

Try again

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:01 am

Well have to pick this up later (if I haven`t been arrested ) got to get a few hours sleep before i pick up the in-laws

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:01 am

Didge wrote:
So as seen you have still failed to answer my points:

Try again

The study appears to prove what many had already suspected: that physical barriers alone are not enough to deter people intent on killing themselves.
"I think barriers are a piece of the puzzle but they are not the whole answer," says co-author Dr. Mark Sinyor.
"In order to really prevent suicides, you need programs that improve access to psychiatrists and other mental health workers, that improve the sense of hope. And barriers don't do that," he says.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932#ixzz35zLI4kTI

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

(So you run away, and I have no need to call the police just exposing you is sufficient, as has been done.)

Still waiting

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:02 am

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
well i have already proved seeing the answer to your question is impossible for you you seem to see something entirely different to everybody else ....it has to be neurological

Still no counter to my points, just more bullshit

Try again

your detailed evidence is...............your opinion nothing has changed that one fact ....night didge

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:03 am

Didge wrote:
Try again

The study appears to prove what many had already suspected: that physical barriers alone are not enough to deter people intent on killing themselves.
"I think barriers are a piece of the puzzle but they are not the whole answer," says co-author Dr. Mark Sinyor.
"In order to really prevent suicides, you need programs that improve access to psychiatrists and other mental health workers, that improve the sense of hope. And barriers don't do that," he says.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932#ixzz35zLI4kTI

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

Still waiting

by Lone Wolf Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:56 pm

The Sassy-Irn Bru-KD' Meinhoff' Gang has managed to drag out what should have been a 2-3 page discussion into some TWELVE (mostly mind-numbingly and teeth-achingly boring) pages !!!

WELL done there, peeps..

IF you can't beat the opposition fairly with facts, science and rational thinking, then bore them to death with endless pointless and repetitive drivel ! Sleep

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:46 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:

The Sassy-Irn Bru-KD' Meinhoff' Gang has managed to drag out what should have been a 2-3 page discussion into some TWELVE (mostly mind-numbingly and teeth-achingly boring) pages !!!

WELL done there, peeps..

IF you can't beat the opposition fairly with facts, science and rational thinking, then bore them to death with endless pointless and repetitive drivel !

I'm sorry the thread displeases you Bee, but I really wanted it to be positive, but ended up spending half of it defending repeatedly against the fib that I was "recruited" into this thread by "pm" in order to launch some sort of "posse attack". I found that quite "mind-numbing".

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:17 pm

lovedust wrote:
I don't think anyone's advocating just building a net and then forgetting about other forms of intervention. But a net *is* one of the things some experts think would be helpful:

"Scientific evidence says a barrier reduces suicides, because thoughts of suicide are transient". -

Eve R. Meyer, Executive Director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention

@ Didge - here's a post from page 5 which shows I agreed with the expert you quote - Mark Sinyor - all along. We were already in agreement that nets are one part of the puzzle, along with several others. I do think he's saying nets are one of the things that would help.

"I think barriers are a piece of the puzzle, but they are not the whole answer". - Sinyor

Well quite.

by Lone Wolf Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:41 pm

lovedust wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:

The Sassy-Irn Bru-KD' Meinhoff' Gang has managed to drag out what should have been a 2-3 page discussion into some TWELVE (mostly mind-numbingly and teeth-achingly boring) pages !!!

WELL done there, peeps..

IF you can't beat the opposition fairly with facts, science and rational thinking, then bore them to death with endless pointless and repetitive drivel !

I'm sorry the thread displeases you Bee, but I really wanted to make this a positive thread but had to spend half of it defending myself repeatedly against the fib that I was "recruited" into this thread by "pm" in order to launch some sort of "gang attack". I found that quite "mind-numbing".

I visited this thread 3 times over the last couple of days, love...

EACH time I re-visited I found that the discussion had moved-on some 4 or 5 pages ~ but nothing had actually advanced re: the topic itself; but I did see squabbling between Didge and Korben, and between you and Quill..

AND no ~ I didn't rewind to find out just why any of you kiddies are arguing over on the sidelines again ~ life is simply too short for such angst !

AS for sassy's contributions, herself ~ what positives has she made since instigating this thread; as all that she appears to have added is her constant puerile abuses against other posters ~ especially Quill, for whom she has been maintaining her scary obsession for over a year by now.. Suspect

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:55 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
lovedust wrote:

I'm sorry the thread displeases you Bee, but I really wanted to make this a positive thread but had to spend half of it defending myself repeatedly against the fib that I was "recruited" into this thread by "pm" in order to launch some sort of "gang attack". I found that quite "mind-numbing".

I visited this thread 3 times over the last couple of days, love...

EACH time I re-visited I found that the discussion had moved-on some 4 or 5 pages ~ but nothing had actually advanced re: the topic itself; but I did see squabbling between Didge and Korben, and between you and Quill..

AND no ~ I didn't rewind to find out just why any of you kiddies are arguing over on the sidelines again ~ life is simply too short for such angst !

AS for sassy's contributions, herself ~ what positives has she made since instigating this thread; as all that she appears to have added is her constant puerile abuses against other posters ~ especially Quill, for whom she has been maintaining her scary obsession for over a year by now..

My requesting Quill stop making unfounded accusations against me - which you obviously do know all about - that makes me a "squabbling kiddie", does it?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:57 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
lovedust wrote:

I'm sorry the thread displeases you Bee, but I really wanted to make this a positive thread but had to spend half of it defending myself repeatedly against the fib that I was "recruited" into this thread by "pm" in order to launch some sort of "gang attack". I found that quite "mind-numbing".

I visited this thread 3 times over the last couple of days, love...

EACH time I re-visited I found that the discussion had moved-on some 4 or 5 pages ~ but nothing had actually advanced re: the topic itself; but I did see squabbling between Didge and Korben, and between you and Quill..

AND no ~ I didn't rewind to find out just why any of you kiddies are arguing over on the sidelines again ~ life is simply too short for such angst !

AS for sassy's contributions, herself ~ what positives has she made since instigating this thread; as all that she appears to have added is her constant puerile abuses against other posters ~ especially Quill, for whom she has been maintaining her scary obsession for over a year by now..

My requesting Quill stop making unfounded accusations against me - which you obviously do know all about - that makes me a "squabbling kiddie", does it?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:22 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
lovedust wrote:

I'm sorry the thread displeases you Bee, but I really wanted to make this a positive thread but had to spend half of it defending myself repeatedly against the fib that I was "recruited" into this thread by "pm" in order to launch some sort of "gang attack". I found that quite "mind-numbing".

I visited this thread 3 times over the last couple of days, love...

EACH time I re-visited I found that the discussion had moved-on some 4 or 5 pages ~ but nothing had actually advanced re: the topic itself; but I did see squabbling between Didge and Korben, and between you and Quill..

AND no ~ I didn't rewind to find out just why any of you kiddies are arguing over on the sidelines again ~ life is simply too short for such angst !

AS for sassy's contributions, herself ~ what positives has she made since instigating this thread; as all that she appears to have added is her constant puerile abuses against other posters ~ especially Quill, for whom she has been maintaining her scary obsession for over a year by now..

Actually Bee, I dropped out a long time ago after putting up a lot of information about what had happened at other bridges that had been made safer and how bridges around them did not have an increased suicide rate. I also told about my friend who was saved by security measures on the Clifton Suspension Bridge. I dropped out when I put Didge on ignore because I couldn't stand his continuous assertions that he knew better than anyone else. Quill would not have been brought into it, if he hadn't said the complete opposite of what the Directors were saying and called the Agenda, with all it's information, 'cow'.

Leave Lovey alone. You are supposed to think of her as a friend, yet I have never once seen you stand up to Quill when he attacks her repeatedly because she won't agree with him. Some friend you are.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:57 pm

Didge wrote:
Didge wrote:
Try again

The study appears to prove what many had already suspected: that physical barriers alone are not enough to deter people intent on killing themselves.
"I think barriers are a piece of the puzzle but they are not the whole answer," says co-author Dr. Mark Sinyor.
"In order to really prevent suicides, you need programs that improve access to psychiatrists and other mental health workers, that improve the sense of hope. And barriers don't do that," he says.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932#ixzz35zLI4kTI

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

Still waiting

For what ?
You are now trying to move away from the 1960 -1970 reduction of CO in gas and the expert conclusions of a detailed study re its effects on the suicide rate that LD cited some pages ago that link the two phenomena that i am speaking to

You say on that subject the methodology of the conclusions is flawed yet provided no evidence to support that assumption other than your a risk assessment Bod and know better than everybody else

And are conflating two different issues ,that are being gas suicide and bridge jumpers to which I have already given my opinion on
I came into this discussion re the coal, gas part of the question my father actually worked in a coking plant making the gas "manvers main in wath-upon- dearn" in the early to late 60s and all though that does not give me anymore specialized knowledge
I thought it was worth mentioning
When I have repeatedly asked for your evidence to discount the expert conclusions LD and myself have put forward you provided none Other than "i am a risk assessment bod" so they're wrong and I am right

The simple fact remains, experts after a detailed study link the removal of CO from gas and the reduction of suicides they also cite the demographic of the population (old biddy's putting their heads in the oven)
You even cite that yourself altough high lighting only selective parts

Didge

Posts: 3660
Join date: 2014-05-11

A detailed analysis of suicide rates between 1960 and 1971 for England and Wales and for Scotland confirms that all age-sex subgroups have shown a marked decline in suicide due to domestic gas, corresponding in time to the fall in the CO content. After considering data on the effects of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Eighth Revision, accident mortality, some personal characteristics of coal gas suicides, and the use of coal gas in parasuicide it was concluded that a simple casual explantation was likely.

Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased,(that's doesn`t say suicides increased just the method in fact the data shows they actually fell in the time period in question )markedly so in some groups. It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services, nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes. The 'compensatory' trend of gas and non-gas suicide rates was indicated for certain age-sex subgroups. The continuing need for suicide research was pointed out, and questions were raised concerning the psychological meaning of the epidemiological data.

So far you have accused the experts of being liars or misleading and stood in opposision to the expert findings findings all based on the questionable fact your a risk assessment BOD but no facts other than that one

As i pointed out you seem to be stuck on the method of suicide rather than the actual act itself
yes the method increased and to be honest, that's not even true The methods have always been available
You then tried to move the goal posts by saying they increased after that
And they did that is not in dispute the detailed research also suggests a reason for that

However, you have now decided to tack in a different direction,and conflate the two topics bridge net and coal gas, but rounded it off with the baseless accusations kind of pathetic really
i might draw your attension to

Threatening letters or other articles - Section 1 Malicious Communications Act, 1988

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8.20830, deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.

Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill.

The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.

The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 All ER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2).

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.

that may be something to consider before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you all ready have

the fact remains all the organizations below and people below disagree with your view and as I said I will take the expert advice on the subject and published papers on the subject other than a risk assessment bod with a god complex

↵
Dooley, E. (1990) Prison suicide in England and Wales, 1972-87. British Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 40-45.
Abstract/FREE Full Text

Government Statistical Service (1993) Social Trends. London: HMSO.

Kelly, S. & Bunting, J. (1998) Trends in suicide in England and Wales, 1982-96. Population Trends, 92, 29 -41.
Medline
↵
Kendell, R. E. (1998) Catalytic converters and prevention of suicide. Lancet, 352, 1525.
↵
McClure, G. M. G. (1984) Trends in suicide rate for England and Wales, 1975-80. British Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 119 -126.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
McClure, G. M. G. (1987) Suicide in England and Wales, 1975-1984. British Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 309 -314.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
McClure, G. M. G. (1994) Suicide in children and adolescents in England and Wales, 1960-1990. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 510 -514.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
McClure, G. M. G. (1999) An integrative systems model. In Family Matters: Interfaces between Child and Adult Mental Health (eds P. Reder, M. McClure & T. Jolley). London: Routledge, in press.
↵
Office for National Statistics (1991-1997) Mortality Statistics: Cause. London: HMSO.
↵
Office for National Statistics (1999) Social Trends. London: Stationery Office.
↵
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1974-1990) Mortality Statistics: Cause. London: HMSO.
↵
Pritchard, C. (1992) Is there a link between suicide in young men and unemployment? A comparison of the UK with other European Community countries. British Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 750 -756.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
Registrar General's Office (1960-1973) Registrar General's Statistical Review for England and Wales: Part I: Tables (Medical). London: HMSO.
↵
Royal College of Psychiatrists (1992) Mental Health of the Nation. The Contribution of Psychiatry. A Report of the President's Working Group. Council Report CR16. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists.
↵
Secretary of State for Health (1992) The Health of the Nation: A Strategy for Health in England. London: HMSO.
↵
World Health Organization (1992) International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Geneva: WHO.

Please don't cut this out again its the list of qualified better informed people and organizations that disagree with your view and is very relevant
yes i know that by removing them and allowing the information to be buried in the drivel you have posted regarding the causal link originally cited you think you can just dismiss it ........think again

When the evidence suggests your drunk best advice i can give you is lie down

Since you have decided to abandon the coal, gas topic, I think it may be prudent for you to read my opinion on the bridge net some pages ago

thanks

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:03 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:

The Sassy-Irn Bru-KD' Meinhoff' Gang has managed to drag out what should have been a 2-3 page discussion into some TWELVE (mostly mind-numbingly and teeth-achingly boring) pages !!!

WELL done there, peeps..

IF you can't beat the opposition fairly with facts, science and rational thinking, then bore them to death with endless pointless and repetitive drivel !

I don`t care the thread displeases you Bee and as i am supporting LD`s post and not sassy or irn
i am not entirely sure what the hell you on about

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:49 pm

^^ @ Didge:

If you google "JAMA" and "Suicide Prevention Strategies", a link should come up to a report of a Systematic Review, undertaken by Suicide Experts from 15 countries, in 2004. The detoxification of British Gas 1960 - 1971 was one of several examples they studied.

Their conclusion: "Physician education in depression recognition and restricting access to lethal methods reduce suicide rates...."

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:59 pm

Didge wrote:
Didge wrote:
Try again

The study appears to prove what many had already suspected: that physical barriers alone are not enough to deter people intent on killing themselves.
"I think barriers are a piece of the puzzle but they are not the whole answer," says co-author Dr. Mark Sinyor.
"In order to really prevent suicides, you need programs that improve access to psychiatrists and other mental health workers, that improve the sense of hope. And barriers don't do that," he says.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932#ixzz35zLI4kTI

I can thus form a view on the methodology used, they are basing links when suicides have decreased taking one factor as the main reason, which is nothing more than an assumption, you would need countless replications of this on all methods that are used for suicides where access is denied, to then really have a claim . That to me when as seen many other factors may have played a part, shows they base this with intent to try and find this as the cause, it can cloud judgement. They would also need to be able to show they have been able to discount other factors as the cause for the decline.
The major prevention to me is having help for people and where much of the work is needed.
Around one third of people who commit suicide have not even sought help, thus this is a major area of concern, which states clearly those who do not are not going to be deterred by methods

Seriously, you have no idea, just like Irn and sassy, at least Lovedust does and debates the points, but you seem to think if you posy what a few experts claim, that is your evidence. That is not only daft but shows how badly you know nothing on the topic.

So I would like to see the following:

Show examples in 12 different methods of suicide, where all other factors have been proven to be discounted with sound scientific methodology and that the prevention of this method has decreased suicides overall for many years based on sound evidence of a link to this method being denied.

If you cannot do so, stop wasting my time, because if you do not know which is obvious you do not, you are as seen clutching at straws.

I actually want to debate the finer details of their claims and nobody agrees 100% as a consensus, if you think that, then it shows how desperate your counters are.

Still waiting

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:02 pm

lovedust wrote:^^ @ Didge:

If you google "JAMA" and "Suicide Prevention Strategies", a link should come up to a report of a Systematic Review, undertaken by Suicide Experts from 15 countries, in 2004. The detoxification of British Gas 1960 - 1971 was one of several examples they studied.

Their conclusion: "Physician education in depression recognition and restricting access to lethal methods reduce suicide rates...."

Lovedust I have read many areas on suicide and they link based on number reductions, without taking other factors into consideration, as pointed out to korben who still refuses to answer my points. He keeps side tracking and he needs to stop diverting to the points

The reality is we do have examples of suicide nets and as seen it does not reduce numbers as seen

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:33 pm

Sassy wrote:It is hoped a net made of stainless steel cable extending below and from the side of the span will save hundreds of lives.

Officials say they have funds to build a suicide-prevention net at San Francisco Bay's Golden Gate Bridge where two jump to their deaths each month.

The bridge's board of directors will vote on Friday on the plan, which has been debated since the 1950s.

One of the obstacles - the price tag - fell away on Monday as officials announced they had $76m (£45m) for the project.

Most of the new money comes from federal transport programmes, while the rest will be paid out of the bridge's own reserves and state mental health funding.

The bridge district's plan calls for a net made of stainless steel cable extending 20ft below and 20ft from the side of the span.

Anyone who jumps from the span might be injured but would probably survive the fall, say officials.

"For whatever reason, suicidal people don't want to hurt themselves," Dennis Mulligan, the bridge district's general manager, told KTVU-TV.

"At other locations where nets have been up no individual has jumped into the net."

More than 1,400 people have leapt to their deaths from the 4,200-ft suspension bridge since it opened in 1937.

Every year, scores of people contemplating suicide are coaxed not to jump from the span.

On average, there are two suicides a month at the structure.

The Bridge Rail Foundation, which tracks fatalities on the span, said 46 people committed suicide there last year.

Backers of the suicide net were boosted in 2012 when President Barack Obama signed a transportation bill allowing federal funds to flow to the project.

http://news.sky.com/story/1288528/golden-gate-bridge-suicide-net-plan-gets-boost

Good idea, if people want to kill themselves they don't want to do something that will hurt them but not kill them, so it sounds logical.

The auto play of this is driving me nuts every time i visit the page

craped my self the first time it played as i had my volume turned up ::fighty!"":

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:36 pm

All you have to do is go to the top and press pause on the video, I thought you were an IT expert?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:37 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:^^ @ Didge:

If you google "JAMA" and "Suicide Prevention Strategies", a link should come up to a report of a Systematic Review, undertaken by Suicide Experts from 15 countries, in 2004. The detoxification of British Gas 1960 - 1971 was one of several examples they studied.

Their conclusion: "Physician education in depression recognition and restricting access to lethal methods reduce suicide rates...."

Lovedust I have read many areas on suicide and they link based on number reductions, without taking other factors into consideration, as pointed out to korben who still refuses to answer my points. He keeps side tracking and he needs to stop diverting to the points

The reality is we do have examples of suicide nets and as seen it does not reduce numbers as seen

Actually Didge the other factors the experts took into account include:

1) Public Education Campaigns
2) Primary Care Physicians
3) Gatekeepers
4) Screening
5) Pharmacotherapy
6) Psychotherapy
7) Follow-up care following suicide attempts
and
8 ) Media Blackouts

and they still concluded "restricting access to lethal methods reduce[s] suicide rates".

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:41 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didge wrote:

Lovedust I have read many areas on suicide and they link based on number reductions, without taking other factors into consideration, as pointed out to korben who still refuses to answer my points. He keeps side tracking and he needs to stop diverting to the points

The reality is we do have examples of suicide nets and as seen it does not reduce numbers as seen

Actually Didge the other factors the experts took into account include:

1) Public Education Campaigns
2) Primary Care Physicians
3) Gatekeepers
4) Screening
5) Pharmacotherapy
6) Psychotherapy
7) Follow-up care following suicide attempts
and
Media Blackouts

and they still concluded "restricting access to lethal methods reduce[s] suicide rates".

Sorry but you are very mistaken, that is not taking into all factors, like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc
It also does not take into account around one third do not seek any advice before they commit suicide, so again a major flaw will be found here, as they have little information to go on

Even the report on the gas eludes to this an that is all that has happened, they have seen a drop, and thus make a link without actually proving this is why it has dropped or fail to explain again why it also rises again at times in levels.

So their findings even by your admission fail to explain any of these issues, thus why it is flawed.

As seen the nets have been deployed in Canada, and where they did suicide attempts doubled elsewhere near by.
AS I say the nets will stop accidents and trauma to others but will not prevent suicides from still taking place

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:45 pm

Didge wrote:All you have to do is go to the top and press pause on the video, I thought you were an IT expert?

yes scroll up a full page and pause it
but as its only effective when your on that page and have to keep doing that when I recheck the thread to see what drivel you have posted
Much easier to ad add auto play blocking filter as i have done

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:47 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:All you have to do is go to the top and press pause on the video, I thought you were an IT expert?
yes scroll up a full page and pause it
but as its only effective when your on that page and have to keep doing that when I recheck the thread to see what drivel you have posted
Much easier to ad add auto play blocking filter as i have done

More childish abuse, I did as Ben requested and moved on from the spat we had and am still waiting for you to answer my points, which on every occasion you have failed to do.

Let me know when you have grown up and want to answer them

Thanks

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:50 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:

Actually Didge the other factors the experts took into account include:

1) Public Education Campaigns
2) Primary Care Physicians
3) Gatekeepers
4) Screening
5) Pharmacotherapy
6) Psychotherapy
7) Follow-up care following suicide attempts
and
Media Blackouts

and they still concluded "restricting access to lethal methods reduce[s] suicide rates".

Sorry but you are very mistaken, that is not taking into all factors, like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc
It also does not take into account around one third do not seek any advice before they commit suicide, so again a major flaw will be found here, as they have little information to go on

Even the report on the gas eludes to this an that is all that has happened, they have seen a drop, and thus make a link without actually proving this is why it has dropped or fail to explain again why it also rises again at times in levels.

So their findings even by your admission fail to explain any of these issues, thus why it is flawed.

As seen the nets have been deployed in Canada, and where they did suicide attempts doubled elsewhere near by.
AS I say the nets will stop accidents and trauma to others but will not prevent suicides from still taking place

Not a major flaw and is to do with Gp reporting
Please don't change and inflate the published conclusions

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:53 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

Sorry but you are very mistaken, that is not taking into all factors, like economic situations, financial, relationship situations, levels of bullying, depression etc
It also does not take into account around one third do not seek any advice before they commit suicide, so again a major flaw will be found here, as they have little information to go on

Even the report on the gas eludes to this an that is all that has happened, they have seen a drop, and thus make a link without actually proving this is why it has dropped or fail to explain again why it also rises again at times in levels.

So their findings even by your admission fail to explain any of these issues, thus why it is flawed.

As seen the nets have been deployed in Canada, and where they did suicide attempts doubled elsewhere near by.
AS I say the nets will stop accidents and trauma to others but will not prevent suicides from still taking place
Not a major flaw and is to do with Gp reporting
Please don't change and inflate the published conclusions

I am showing the flaws as seen, they do not take these into considerations as seen from what Lovedust posted, even from the report on the Gas also it even eludes to the fact many factors have not been taken into account.
To me you are reliant on GP reporting now, which has little to do with people who do not even inform their own GP's another factor you are missing, remember around a third do not even seek any help

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:57 pm

Double post

by Irn Bru Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:12 pm

Didge wrote:
lovedust wrote:^^ @ Didge:

If you google "JAMA" and "Suicide Prevention Strategies", a link should come up to a report of a Systematic Review, undertaken by Suicide Experts from 15 countries, in 2004. The detoxification of British Gas 1960 - 1971 was one of several examples they studied.

Their conclusion: "Physician education in depression recognition and restricting access to lethal methods reduce suicide rates...."

Lovedust I have read many areas on suicide and they link based on number reductions, without taking other factors into consideration, as pointed out to korben who still refuses to answer my points. He keeps side tracking and he needs to stop diverting to the points

The reality is we do have examples of suicide nets and as seen it does not reduce numbers as seen

Didge, where does it say that?

And the 4 links you gave me earlier do not dispute the evidence already presented to you.

Oh, and stop being silly about people running away. I’ve already told you that you are not that important. You just have to accept that other people actually have a life beyond forums and spend time with their family and friends and have other things to do. I know that may come as a shock you but I’m afraid you rank below all that.

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:17 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

Lovedust I have read many areas on suicide and they link based on number reductions, without taking other factors into consideration, as pointed out to korben who still refuses to answer my points. He keeps side tracking and he needs to stop diverting to the points

The reality is we do have examples of suicide nets and as seen it does not reduce numbers as seen

Didge, where does it say that?

And the 4 links you gave me earlier do not dispute the evidence already presented to you.

Oh, and stop being silly about people running away. I’ve already told you that you are not that important. You just have to accept that other people actually have a life beyond forums and spend time with their family and friends and have other things to do. I know that may come as a shock you but I’m afraid you rank below all that.

More childish abuse, you need to grow up and debate the points and stop your silly grudge with Quill

I suggest you read back to the links I have given on the nets used in Canada

http://www.ctvnews.ca/do-barriers-around-bridges-prevent-suicides-1.529932

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/british-medical-journal-study-bloor-street-viaduct-barrier-not-lowering-torontos-suicide-rate/

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:22 pm

Didgey: hang about... This was a systematic review by suicide experts from 15 countries including

- 10 individual systematic reviews or metaanalyses
- 18 randomized controlled trials
- 24 cohort studies and
- 41 ecological studies

... and you say it's flawed by my own admission because it doesn't take things like financial situation and bullying into account?

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:24 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didgey: hang about... This was a systematic review by suicide experts from 15 countries including

- 10 individual systematic reviews or metaanalyses
- 18 randomized controlled trials
- 24 cohort studies and
- 41 ecological studies

... and you say it's flawed by my own admission because it doesn't take things like financial situation and bullying into account?

Yes I do find it flawed, because it is seeking to find such a link, which leads to bias, where again it fails to factor in the many points I have raised, as seen we see a very good example of safety nets being used which does not change the rate of suicides, in fact as stated it just moves it elsewhere.
The fact remains and any expert will tell you the best methods are in helping the victims themselves

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:29 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
yes scroll up a full page and pause it
but as its only effective when your on that page and have to keep doing that when I recheck the thread to see what drivel you have posted
Much easier to ad add auto play blocking filter as i have done

More childish abuse, I did as Ben requested and moved on from the spat we had and am still waiting for you to answer my points, which on every occasion you have failed to do.

Let me know when you have grown up and want to answer them

Thanks

says the guy who has directed more abuse and threats than anyone.......how ironic

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:31 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Didge wrote:

More childish abuse, I did as Ben requested and moved on from the spat we had and am still waiting for you to answer my points, which on every occasion you have failed to do.

Let me know when you have grown up and want to answer them

Thanks
says the guy who has directed more abuse and threats than anyone.......how ironic

More childish counters, and unable to move on to the point now I am the subject of the debate and not the points at hand.

You need to grow up and move on!

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:34 pm

lovedust wrote:
Didgey: hang about... This was a systematic review by suicide experts from 15 countries including

- 10 individual systematic reviews or metaanalyses
- 18 randomized controlled trials
- 24 cohort studies and
- 41 ecological studies

... and you say it's flawed by my own admission because it doesn't take things like financial situation and bullying into account?

that doesn`t count as dodgy is an expert in everything
And all the studies in the world won't change that one delusional self belief he has in his own retoric

by Guest Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:39 pm

Didge wrote:
Korban_Dallas wrote:
says the guy who has directed more abuse and threats than anyone.......how ironic

More childish counters, and unable to move on to the point now I am the subject of the debate and not the points at hand.

You need to grow up and move on!

factual counters if you dont mind are you saying you haven't directed more childish insults than I have
in fact go through the thread see who started with the insults and accusation i have done my very best to be civil its a real shame that the same can't be said of you

How pathetic

by Sponsored content