Southport Stabbings

[hoopsaa]

12 hours ago, HeliX said:

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.

The section 58 stuff is very difficult, as is the prosecution of young men talking shit.

 

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, hoopsaa said:

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?

Hardly.

These days they can get radicalised online.

I suppose it's worth digging around to see if he had any accomplices but like Breivik he could be a "lone wolf".

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, hoopsaa said:

Section 58 is pretty much exactly how the BBC stated it, and what I quoted, and which you are questioning?

"A person commits an offence if—

 

(a)he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, F1...

 

(b)he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind [F2, or

 

(c)the person views, or otherwise accesses, by means of the internet a document or record containing information of that kind.]

 

[F3(1A)The cases in which a person collects or makes a record for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) include (but are not limited to) those in which the person does so by means of the internet (whether by downloading the record or otherwise).]

 

(2)In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.

 

(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.

 

[F4(3A)The cases in which a person has a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (3) include (but are not limited to) those in which—

 

(a)at the time of the person's action or possession the person did not know, and had no reason to believe, that the document or record in question contained, or was likely to contain, information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

 

(b)the person's action or possession was for the purposes of—

 

(i)carrying out work as a journalist, or

 

(ii)academic research."

 

It has been pointed out to you that the document found was more of an academic text than an actual terrorism manual.  

One of the defenses under section 58 is having the material for academic purposes.   Do I think that is the case here?  Probably not but that is for the courts to decide.

You seem to be very much against allowing due process and a full and fair trial taking place.

[hoopsaa]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

"A person commits an offence if—

 

(a)he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, F1...

 

(b)he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind [F2, or

 

(c)the person views, or otherwise accesses, by means of the internet a document or record containing information of that kind.]

 

[F3(1A)The cases in which a person collects or makes a record for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) include (but are not limited to) those in which the person does so by means of the internet (whether by downloading the record or otherwise).]

 

(2)In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.

 

(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.

 

[F4(3A)The cases in which a person has a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (3) include (but are not limited to) those in which—

 

(a)at the time of the person's action or possession the person did not know, and had no reason to believe, that the document or record in question contained, or was likely to contain, information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

 

(b)the person's action or possession was for the purposes of—

 

(i)carrying out work as a journalist, or

 

(ii)academic research."

 

It has been pointed out to you that the document found was more of an academic text than an actual terrorism manual.  

One of the defenses under section 58 is having the material for academic purposes.   Do I think that is the case here?  Probably not but that is for the courts to decide.

You seem to be very much against allowing due process and a full and fair trial taking place.

I'm pointing out that he's been charged with terrorism offences.  Maybe it was the ricin that kept him looking so young?

If I am jumping to conclusions, it's just in keeping with the Home Secretary who branded all those arrested in and around the disorder that followed the murders as criminals, before they had stood trial.

One law, and all that.

[P.K.]

5 minutes ago, hoopsaa said:

If I am jumping to conclusions, it's just in keeping with the Home Secretary who branded all those arrested in and around the disorder that followed the murders as criminals, before they had stood trial.

One law, and all that.

Footage of the incidents showed a bunch of criminals in action.

They don't need to be convicted when you can believe the evidence of your own eyes...

[hoopsaa]

6 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Footage of the incidents showed a bunch of criminals in action.

They don't need to be convicted when you can believe the evidence of your own eyes...

OK, so you don't believe in due process.

[HeliX]

7 minutes ago, hoopsaa said:

OK, so you don't believe in due process.

Were any of them imprisoned without due process? Didn't they almost all plead guilty?

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, hoopsaa said:

OK, so you don't believe in due process.

What has due process got to do with stating the bleeding obvious?

Or are you blind or something?

[Gladys]

The possession of ricin and the PDF may not be indicative of any terrorist intent, in the furtherance of a political or religious ideology meaning, but of a deeper underlying psychological issue. 

You know, a bit like serial killers having a desire to collect roadkill, or amass Nazi memorabilia. 

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, hoopsaa said:

I'm pointing out that he's been charged with terrorism offences.  Maybe it was the ricin that kept him looking so young?

Gladys has answered this question very well already.  I would again reiterate that the Ricin charge is not being made under the Terrorism Act but rather the production of Biological Weapons which I cited earlier.  Two different pieces of legislation.

18 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The possession of ricin and the PDF may not be indicative of any terrorist intent, in the furtherance of a political or religious ideology meaning, but of a deeper underlying psychological issue. 

You know, a bit like serial killers having a desire to collect roadkill, or amass Nazi memorabilia. 

 

1 hour ago, hoopsaa said:

If I am jumping to conclusions, it's just in keeping with the Home Secretary who branded all those arrested in and around the disorder that followed the murders as criminals, before they had stood trial.

One law, and all that.

Others have already addressed this point, but rioting is a criminal act as is attempting to burn down hotels with asylum seekers inside.  Those who have gone to prison for their acts in the aftermath of the Southport incident all pleaded guilty so could be quickly processed.  

This is why I have a problem with your posts.  You seem to be very much latched onto the "fake news" that spread in the immediate aftermath of the incident, which was then given legitimacy by people like Nigel Farage, which lead to the riots all over the UK.  Some people in attendance may well have intended to be peacefully protesting but, as stated above, all those now in prison pleaded guilty to criminal offences and were not peacefully protesting.

The actual suspect in the Southport case has been investigated thoroughly by the Police who have built a case based on the evidence and facts gathered and via the CPS have now brought charges.  The suspect, will rightly be allowed to have the case heard and put forward a defence against those charges, and the courts will then decide whether he is guilty or innocent.  If guilty the judge will give an appropriate sentence.  Now this is the really important bit...  That is all in accordance with the laws of the UK and a right to a fair trial.  Yes, it does sometimes feel like the process takes to long but the Police and CPS need to put together the best case they can in order to achieve a conviction. 

If you don't like that process then I suggest you move to another country where "justice" is swift but I rather suspect that you won't like those countries.  

 

[Chinahand]

Does anyone dispute the facts. A young man took a knife and travelled multiple miles to a children's event where he attacked and killed multiple children.

I am highly sceptical that this was a random act and the efforts involved require a mind to be functioning at a level of some competence. 

Motivations and concealing motivations to evade justice make untangling the truth challenging, but I've little doubt the horror this person has created in the public mind and have trouble given the distances travelled etc believing he wasn't aware of what he was doing. 

The trial is important to show a proper investigation of the facts and how they shed light on his motivations. 

[hoopsaa]

28 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

 Some people in attendance may well have intended to be peacefully protesting but, as stated above, all those now in prison pleaded guilty to criminal offences and were not peacefully protesting.

 

Yeah, but where was the presumption of innocence before their trials? The home secretary certainly didn't adhere to that principle.

[Chinahand]

The magic word "if". 

If you try to set fire to a hotel...

If you throw bricks and fence posts at the police...

If you threaten violence over the internet...

... the law will deal with you. 

Good. 

[manxman1980]

10 minutes ago, hoopsaa said:

Yeah, but where was the presumption of innocence before their trials? The home secretary certainly didn't adhere to that principle.

Care to provide an actual quote from the Home Secretary so we can be clear on what we are talking about?

You seem to like vague statements and don't want to get drawn on specifics for some reason.

[Gladys]

22 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Does anyone dispute the facts. A young man took a knife and travelled multiple miles to a children's event where he attacked and killed multiple children.

I am highly sceptical that this was a random act and the efforts involved require a mind to be functioning at a level of some competence. 

Motivations and concealing motivations to evade justice make untangling the truth challenging, but I've little doubt the horror this person has created in the public mind and have trouble given the distances travelled etc believing he wasn't aware of what he was doing. 

The trial is important to show a proper investigation of the facts and how they shed light on his motivations. 

No one is disputing the awful and sad  facts, just not necessarily attributing the motive to terrorism. 

It is highly unlikely that he was acting as some of automaton, it obviously was planned and pre-meditated.  But whether that was to further some kind of political or religious ideology or whether it was for some other motivation, even if it was just to see what it would be like to kill someone, we don't know.