manxman1980 Posted October 31 Posted October 31 2 hours ago, Jarndyce said: Anders Breivik? Hungerford? Dunblane? Derrick Bird? 1 Quote
manxman1980 Posted October 31 Posted October 31 (edited) Duplicate Post Edited October 31 by manxman1980 Quote
Jarndyce Posted October 31 Posted October 31 16 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: 2 hours ago, Jarndyce said: Anders Breivik? Hungerford? Dunblane? Derrick Bird? Indeed... Quote
hoopsaa Posted October 31 Posted October 31 7 hours ago, manxman1980 said: The responses from yourself and Shake Me Up Judy both inferred points about religion and nationality. Again, big leap there. Quote
hoopsaa Posted October 31 Posted October 31 7 hours ago, HeliX said: Terrorism is when non-whites do bad crimes. The IRA, UVF, INLA, UDA were black? Who knew? 1 Quote
hoopsaa Posted October 31 Posted October 31 3 hours ago, HeliX said: AFAIK he was convicted of terror offences in the end, but you can bet your bottom dollar if he wasn't white it wouldn't have taken months of psychological assessment to get there. Of course he was a terrorist, he had terrorist literature. While our Southport murderer, despite having terrorist literature, shouldn't be viewed as a terrorist? So if they decide, after months of psychological assessment, that he is a terrorist, where does this leave you and your allies 'everyone who disagrees with me is racist' grandstanding? It could come out that the bloke, forever 10 in the eyes of the msm, is an incel. Which, as we see in Afghanistan right now, isn't far removed from a particularly awful strand of islamism. Quote
HeliX Posted October 31 Posted October 31 33 minutes ago, hoopsaa said: Of course he was a terrorist, he had terrorist literature. While our Southport murderer, despite having terrorist literature, shouldn't be viewed as a terrorist? So if they decide, after months of psychological assessment, that he is a terrorist, where does this leave you and your allies 'everyone who disagrees with me is racist' grandstanding? It could come out that the bloke, forever 10 in the eyes of the msm, is an incel. Which, as we see in Afghanistan right now, isn't far removed from a particularly awful strand of islamism. The "terrorist literature" law is something I've taken issue with in the past, as an aside. There was a thread on here discussing it but a vast majority of my school year had copies of the Anarchist Cookbook. I'm not convinced possession of the wrong words in the wrong order should be an offence. If he's a terrorist he's a terrorist. People jumping to conclusions the second the offence was committed are still a part of the problem, even if it turns out (through nothing but 'luck' on their part) that they guessed correctly. Quote
John Wright Posted October 31 Posted October 31 53 minutes ago, hoopsaa said: Of course he was a terrorist, he had terrorist literature. While our Southport murderer, despite having terrorist literature, shouldn't be viewed as a terrorist? So if they decide, after months of psychological assessment, that he is a terrorist, where does this leave you and your allies 'everyone who disagrees with me is racist' grandstanding? It could come out that the bloke, forever 10 in the eyes of the msm, is an incel. Which, as we see in Afghanistan right now, isn't far removed from a particularly awful strand of islamism. The problem is that it appears what he had wasn’t terrorist literature or handbook, but a western academic or military analysis of a terrorist handbook. So, apparently, legal in the hands of intelligence services, the military and academic researchers, but not a young man? Begs the question where he got it from and what data breach, where, ended up with it out there. 1 Quote
manxman1980 Posted October 31 Posted October 31 1 hour ago, hoopsaa said: Again, big leap there. And you seem to ignore the rest of my post... strange that. Is it because it causes some cognitive dissonance? Quote
John Wright Posted October 31 Posted October 31 2 hours ago, hoopsaa said: he had terrorist literature Apart from the presumption of innocence apparently not counting for much, he’s not actually charged with having “terrorist” literature. I’ve tried to explain what is being alleged, above. 2 hours ago, hoopsaa said: months of psychological assessment, that he is a terroris That’s not the factual or legal test. Quote
hoopsaa Posted October 31 Posted October 31 1 hour ago, John Wright said: Apart from the presumption of innocence apparently not counting for much, he’s not actually charged with having “terrorist” literature. I’ve tried to explain what is being alleged, above. That’s not the factual or legal test. According to the BBC, he's charged with possessing a PDF document of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, contrary to section 58 of the terrorism act 2000. Second point was clearly referencing what someone else said about another case, and the racism inherent in white people. Yawn. Incredible really, the crimes he committed - and we know he did - and it turns out he's not the real problem. Quote
P.K. Posted October 31 Posted October 31 I don't care about what extra charges may or may not be relevant. All I care about is if he's compos mentis enough to stand trial. If he is then they can lock him up and throw away the key. If not then he can spend the rest of his days being creative in the Broadmoor School of Art... Quote
manxman1980 Posted November 1 Posted November 1 3 hours ago, hoopsaa said: According to the BBC, he's charged with possessing a PDF document of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, contrary to section 58 of the terrorism act 2000. You have been told several times what the document is. Have you looked up section 58? 3 hours ago, hoopsaa said: Second point was clearly referencing what someone else said about another case, and the racism inherent in white people. Yawn. No, white people are no more inherently racist than anyone else. Just a few people online jumping to conclusions and believing lies. 3 hours ago, hoopsaa said: Incredible really, the crimes he committed - and we know he did - and it turns out he's not the real problem. We suspect he did it. The courts need to decide on his guilt based on the evidence. Let the legal process play out. Quote
hoopsaa Posted November 1 Posted November 1 7 hours ago, P.K. said: I don't care about what extra charges may or may not be relevant. All I care about is if he's compos mentis enough to stand trial. If he is then they can lock him up and throw away the key. If not then he can spend the rest of his days being creative in the Broadmoor School of Art... Well, as others have pointed out, he's British, so if he has indeed been radicalised in any way, in Britain, finding out about that is pretty important, no? Quote
hoopsaa Posted November 1 Posted November 1 5 hours ago, manxman1980 said: You have been told several times what the document is. Have you looked up section 58? No, white people are no more inherently racist than anyone else. Just a few people online jumping to conclusions and believing lies. We suspect he did it. The courts need to decide on his guilt based on the evidence. Let the legal process play out. Section 58 is pretty much exactly how the BBC stated it, and what I quoted, and which you are questioning? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.