Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Southport stabbings


Furmedge
 Share

Recommended Posts

I honestly don’t get the controversy here. At the time of the attack - all they knew about him was the basic facts of his place of birth, residence, cultural background etc. Nothing in there suggests he was a would-be terrorist so they didn’t just jump straight in and incite panic and hatred by making a wild supposition.

 

Since then - and I admit I haven’t read tonnes on this so maybe they’ve found more - they’ve found two pieces of evidence which could suggest he had terrorist motives. And if you want to speculate in the pub or on the internet that might be enough - but obviously the police and the CPS don’t just go “aye that’ll do”, they have to be certain in order to make those kind of charges stack up.

 

The evidence - a military study of a terrorist “training manual” and some evidence that he’s tried making ricin - could potentially be passed off as circumstantial. He could be a nutjob interested in death and terrorism and that’s why he’s read materials. There was also a case in Norway (still to be tried I think) of a lad who made ricin but never intended to use it, so he’s trying to claim he’s done nothing wrong. It seems far-fetched but it’s the kind of arguments a defence lawyer could be making on evidence like this alone and you wouldn’t want that kind of argument detracting from the overall case (and if you think he shouldn’t be entitled to a full and fair defence then I’ve got nothing to say to you).

 

I would imagine what is lacking here is the direct link between this kind of shit that’s been found and the terrible crime he committed. If he’s published or said nothing before or after that suggests he carried this out to further a political or religious agenda, then there’ll remain an ongoing question as to whether this was an awful crime enacted for terrorist reasons, or an awful crime enacted for some other reason.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Manny said:

I honestly don’t get the controversy here. At the time of the attack - all they knew about him was the basic facts of his place of birth, residence, cultural background etc. Nothing in there suggests he was a would-be terrorist so they didn’t just jump straight in and incite panic and hatred by making a wild supposition.

 

Since then - and I admit I haven’t read tonnes on this so maybe they’ve found more - they’ve found two pieces of evidence which could suggest he had terrorist motives. And if you want to speculate in the pub or on the internet that might be enough - but obviously the police and the CPS don’t just go “aye that’ll do”, they have to be certain in order to make those kind of charges stack up.

 

The evidence - a military study of a terrorist “training manual” and some evidence that he’s tried making ricin - could potentially be passed off as circumstantial. He could be a nutjob interested in death and terrorism and that’s why he’s read materials. There was also a case in Norway (still to be tried I think) of a lad who made ricin but never intended to use it, so he’s trying to claim he’s done nothing wrong. It seems far-fetched but it’s the kind of arguments a defence lawyer could be making on evidence like this alone and you wouldn’t want that kind of argument detracting from the overall case (and if you think he shouldn’t be entitled to a full and fair defence then I’ve got nothing to say to you).

 

I would imagine what is lacking here is the direct link between this kind of shit that’s been found and the terrible crime he committed. If he’s published or said nothing before or after that suggests he carried this out to further a political or religious agenda, then there’ll remain an ongoing question as to whether this was an awful crime enacted for terrorist reasons, or an awful crime enacted for some other reason.

 

Great post and the kind of rational thinking that some people won't like because it doesn't tally up with their Echo/Daily Mail comments section type mentality. There are certainly some who really want him to be a muslim terrorist. 

 

 

Also and more importantly, I think that might be the first time I've ever given anyone on here a trophy reaction. Might be wrong though. Rare fuckers them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Manny said:

I honestly don’t get the controversy here. At the time of the attack - all they knew about him was the basic facts of his place of birth, residence, cultural background etc. Nothing in there suggests he was a would-be terrorist so they didn’t just jump straight in and incite panic and hatred by making a wild supposition.

 

Since then - and I admit I haven’t read tonnes on this so maybe they’ve found more - they’ve found two pieces of evidence which could suggest he had terrorist motives. And if you want to speculate in the pub or on the internet that might be enough - but obviously the police and the CPS don’t just go “aye that’ll do”, they have to be certain in order to make those kind of charges stack up.

 

The evidence - a military study of a terrorist “training manual” and some evidence that he’s tried making ricin - could potentially be passed off as circumstantial. He could be a nutjob interested in death and terrorism and that’s why he’s read materials. There was also a case in Norway (still to be tried I think) of a lad who made ricin but never intended to use it, so he’s trying to claim he’s done nothing wrong. It seems far-fetched but it’s the kind of arguments a defence lawyer could be making on evidence like this alone and you wouldn’t want that kind of argument detracting from the overall case (and if you think he shouldn’t be entitled to a full and fair defence then I’ve got nothing to say to you).

 

I would imagine what is lacking here is the direct link between this kind of shit that’s been found and the terrible crime he committed. If he’s published or said nothing before or after that suggests he carried this out to further a political or religious agenda, then there’ll remain an ongoing question as to whether this was an awful crime enacted for terrorist reasons, or an awful crime enacted for some other reason.


17 year old boy, the case has been dropped and he has been released.

 

In 2011 a Norwegian guy in his 20’s died in his own home after making ricin at home. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manny said:

I honestly don’t get the controversy here. At the time of the attack - all they knew about him was the basic facts of his place of birth, residence, cultural background etc. Nothing in there suggests he was a would-be terrorist so they didn’t just jump straight in and incite panic and hatred by making a wild supposition.

 

Since then - and I admit I haven’t read tonnes on this so maybe they’ve found more - they’ve found two pieces of evidence which could suggest he had terrorist motives. And if you want to speculate in the pub or on the internet that might be enough - but obviously the police and the CPS don’t just go “aye that’ll do”, they have to be certain in order to make those kind of charges stack up.

 

The evidence - a military study of a terrorist “training manual” and some evidence that he’s tried making ricin - could potentially be passed off as circumstantial. He could be a nutjob interested in death and terrorism and that’s why he’s read materials. There was also a case in Norway (still to be tried I think) of a lad who made ricin but never intended to use it, so he’s trying to claim he’s done nothing wrong. It seems far-fetched but it’s the kind of arguments a defence lawyer could be making on evidence like this alone and you wouldn’t want that kind of argument detracting from the overall case (and if you think he shouldn’t be entitled to a full and fair defence then I’ve got nothing to say to you).

 

I would imagine what is lacking here is the direct link between this kind of shit that’s been found and the terrible crime he committed. If he’s published or said nothing before or after that suggests he carried this out to further a political or religious agenda, then there’ll remain an ongoing question as to whether this was an awful crime enacted for terrorist reasons, or an awful crime enacted for some other reason.

its a few factors.

obviously the barbaric nature of the crime.

But its been tied into the ongoing issue of immigration, despite him being born in wales,by the likes of jenrick.

its also adds to the ridiculous idea that we have some sort of ridiculous 2 tier judicial system in this country

so the likes of farage has used the horrific deaths of 3 young girls,to imply that starmer is somehow trying to cover up the murders, because he doesn’t want to upset muslims. 

and finally the obvious attempts by the right to undermine labour at every possible turn.

My guess is,that if it would have been a tory government in power,none of this would have happened.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

But its been tied into the ongoing issue of immigration

 

Was he a first generation immigrant?

no of course not.

 

Jenrick is playing to the furthest right of the Tory party membership, seemingly in the hope that it will advance his prospects to become leader. “Across the board, the hard reality of mass migration is being covered up. The public can see with their own eyes that they are being gaslit by the liberal elite,” he said in the video

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should remember the great ricin plot trial of 2005 - when there was no actual ricin to speak of, let alone a plot - and hope that the police have learnt their lesson and have sought to move cautiously with the investigation and not play it out in the media like they did then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

that doctor who drove into a bollard in Glasgow, got headbutted, then set himself on fire.

 

That was at the airport.  Frankie Boyle pointed out that the people who stopped the attack reportedly stopped hundreds of people from being horribly burned, but these were Scottish people on their way to Spain, so...

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

The underpants bomber is still in my top trumps, slowly followed by that doctor who drove into a bollard in Glasgow, got headbutted, then set himself on fire.

 

No wonder someone wrote a training manual.


This is excellent. Also mentions suicide bomber training which is even more topical 

 

 

https://youtu.be/7gMJBQoHJ4E?si=CxjAtBO6lqFZV6DQ
 

Fuck sake won’t embed but it’s Billy Connolly on terror attack on Glasgow. Hilarious 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

That was at the airport.  Frankie Boyle pointed out that the people who stopped the attack reportedly stopped hundreds of people from being horribly burned, but these were Scottish people on their way to Spain, so...

also does a great line about bringing sectarian intolerance to Glasgow

 

already way ahead of you..got 2 football teams

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a ricin making, child-killing rampaging murder want to see a chilling, revealing looking into the mind of the notorious terrorist group, Al-Qeada. I wonder. What I do know is that if you think he's probably a terrorist, you're an absolute bastard. Much in the same way that if you think Hannibal Lecter reading copies of 'How to Avoid Kúru', 'Flaying for Beginners', and '1001 Recipes: It Takes Just Like Chicken' is anything other than purely coincidental, you're absolutely mental. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...