wrighty Posted November 1 Posted November 1 Terrorism isn’t about what he’s done, it’s why he did it. Putting a bomb in the heart of government under orders from an organisation dedicated to forcing through political change is terrorism, putting the same bomb in the same hotel because you thought the room service was poor is not. If these stabbings were terrorist activities they weren’t particularly effective as such. Far more likely in my view that this guy is not right in the head rather than under orders from Al Qaeda or similar. And the training manual and ricin are most likely part of the twisted fantasy world his mind lives in. Should certainly be fully investigated though. 4 Quote
P.K. Posted November 1 Posted November 1 47 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. Yes they did secure in the knowledge that ALL of those arrested will end up in the courts who ALWAYS have the last word on who is innocent and who is guilty and everyone, except possibly you, knows it! Trying to condemn the Home Secretary for stating the bleeding obvious just makes you look totally ridiculous... IMHO of course. Quote
Chinahand Posted November 1 Posted November 1 47 minutes ago, wrighty said: If these stabbings were terrorist activities they weren’t particularly effective as such. Far more likely in my view that this guy is not right in the head rather than under orders from Al Qaeda That is the nub of the issue. Various terrorist groups have encouraged any deluded loser to see themselves as a radical, society transcending, lone wolf. They don't even need to be in contact with them, they've just made an open call to slaughter the infidel. These losers maybe ineffective societally, but they maim and kill at a certain level (ask Salman Rushdie). A terrorist group creating a zeitgeist for losers to blame the infidel for their plight and encourage the paranoid to lash out with kitchen knives and stolen lorries is a highly effective way for them to undermine and gain publicity with very few downsides. 1 Quote
manxman1980 Posted November 1 Posted November 1 44 minutes ago, Chinahand said: They don't even need to be in contact with them, they've just made an open call to slaughter the infidel. That's the bit I don't like in relation to this case. The implication that the suspect is Islamic. Go back to the known facts and we have that he is born in Wales to Christian immigrants. He has been found in possession of an academic text on the methods used by Al-Queda. I have not seen any reports of him having a particular religious faith from any reliable source so it is speculation at this stage. My concern is for the thousands of peaceful and law-abiding people who get tarnished by the actions of extremists and radicals who then end up on the end of racist attacks. It is equally plausible that the suspect could be an "incel" who decided to research a whole host of things but ultimately decided to take out his frustrations on a group of innocent young girls in the most horrific way. Quote
Jarndyce Posted November 1 Posted November 1 3 hours ago, manxman1980 said: 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. I know what you’re saying, and why: but it starts to feel a little like splitting hairs, when the accused was found IN POSSESSION OF A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON!!! Quote
manxman1980 Posted November 1 Posted November 1 27 minutes ago, Jarndyce said: I know what you’re saying, and why: but it starts to feel a little like splitting hairs, when the accused was found IN POSSESSION OF A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON!!! But without evidence of a motive to use it nor evidence it was used he can't be charged with anything else. Quote
John Wright Posted November 1 Posted November 1 48 minutes ago, Jarndyce said: I know what you’re saying, and why: but it starts to feel a little like splitting hairs, when the accused was found IN POSSESSION OF A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON!!! I suppose it depends on how you define biological weapon. Unless individually injected it’s almost impossible to use covertly for terrorist purposes. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19767104/ Quote
hoopsaa Posted November 1 Posted November 1 3 hours ago, P.K. said: Yes they did secure in the knowledge that ALL of those arrested will end up in the courts who ALWAYS have the last word on who is innocent and who is guilty and everyone, except possibly you, knows it! Trying to condemn the Home Secretary for stating the bleeding obvious just makes you look totally ridiculous... IMHO of course. Woosh Quote
hoopsaa Posted November 1 Posted November 1 4 hours ago, manxman1980 said: 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. Quote
hoopsaa Posted November 1 Posted November 1 Just now, hoopsaa said: Now, PK may never have spent time in a cell for something he didn't do, but I have. There is no presumption of innocence in that tweet. Quote
Jarndyce Posted November 1 Posted November 1 48 minutes ago, John Wright said: I suppose it depends on how you define biological weapon. Unless individually injected it’s almost impossible to use covertly for terrorist purposes Oh well, that's all right then... Quote
John Wright Posted November 1 Posted November 1 4 minutes ago, Jarndyce said: Oh well, that's all right then... No of course it’s not, but neither is it alright to overstate it as a biological weapon. Quote
hoopsaa Posted November 1 Posted November 1 48 minutes ago, John Wright said: No of course it’s not, but neither is it alright to overstate it as a biological weapon. Surely he'll be judged on the intent, rather then the practicality of his plans, if indeed etc etc Quote
John Wright Posted November 1 Posted November 1 44 minutes ago, hoopsaa said: Surely he'll be judged on the intent, rather then the practicality of his plans, if indeed etc etc He has to know, or have reasonable grounds for knowing, what it was that he produced, that’s the intent for the charge. Presumably a cook book or guide downloaded from the internet, proof of purchase of raw materials, and production equipment. He's charged with possession. Any plans to use would be an aggravating factor in sentencing. Assuming he’s convicted of the murders, attempted murders, the sentencing for the written material and the ricin will be rolled up in the sentences for the homicides. Compulsory life with minimum term of 25-30, possibly a whole life term. I know that there’s been speculation about his mental state, but no lawyer advises a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, or even unfit to plead, without pretty exceptional circumstances. It’s disadvantageous to your client. Bit different since abolition of the death penalty. There was an advantage then. 1 Quote
manxman1980 Posted November 1 Posted November 1 2 hours ago, hoopsaa said: That's a Home Office tweet and not a quote from the Home Secretary. It also doesn't appear to identify any individual but as I am not on Twitter/X I can't tell. Would you feel the same if it said "related to terrorist events" or "related to sexual offences"? (Obviously with different imagery) The "full force of the law" could also simply mean being charged and standing trial. 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.