aintforever

Sacking Ralph was obviously a massive fuck up.

I know it's entirely plausible, but so is the idea that they are just saying that for political reasons. I'd be tempted to believe the scientists more than the spokesman for an agency working for a government with an anti-China agenda. They are free to disclose their evidence if they have any. "“Now, the most important thing is to make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world,” Cotton said in a statement."

What is their evidence?

Studies of the earliest viral genomes seem to indicate the Wuhan market as the cause, they even pinpoint the actual location within the market. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2448671-evidence-points-to-wuhan-market-as-source-of-covid-19-outbreak/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8095xjg4po We will probably never know for sure but it would be interesting to see the actual evidence for it starting from the lab.

Easier said than done. When a team goes down it’s not as easy as picking and choosing who stays and who goes, finances are tight and if there are players here who are under contract and can do a decent job it probably makes sense to keep them and get the best out of them.

Agree. In cases like this, where the level of depravity is so high and there is no doubt of guilt, it should be an option.

Because of his obsession with violence, the reason they didn’t do anything was because he wasn’t seen as an Islamic extremist. From the BBC: An initial review over the summer found Prevent failed to flag Rudakubana as a serious threat because he did not exhibit a commitment to a single radical ideology, Cooper told the Commons. She said the three referrals took place after he expressed an interest in school shootings, the 2017 London Bridge attack, the IRA, MI5 and the Middle East. "Too much weight was placed on the absence of ideology," Cooper said, in light of the fact Rudakubana was "obsessed with massacre or extreme violence". Cooper said it was "unbearable to think that something more could and should have been done" to stop him, and that "action against him was much too weak".

They said he was born in Wales which is just a fact.

But the definition of terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I don’t think, from what the plod have said, there was clear political aim to what he did. He looks to me like a sick cunt obsessed with killing/death.

The riots were clearly stoked up by misinformation online, spread by the usual racists - releasing bits of information like the ricin and training manual would have just fuelled the theories even more IMO.

That’s just complete bollocks, there was all sorts of misinformation about him being an illegal immigrant etc. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99v90813j5o

From what I’ve read it just looks like he was obsessed with killing and violence, the plod have said there was no clear evidence of one ideology.

I think that’s just bollocks, the sort of nonsense spouted by Farage and the like to excuse the racist thugs that made the whole thing worse. If they had mentioned the ricin and training manual we all know what certain people would assume and the effect it would have on the situation. If there was an obvious terrorist motive we would have been told at the time, but even now the motive doesn’t appear clear.

I guess that’s a matter of opinion. If releasing bits of information about a complex person means aggravating the riots why the need to make it public?

I don't think it looks like they have done anything wrong. I'm not sure what releasing info about ricin or the training manual would have achieved at the time except make things worse. You never get all the details of a case until it goes to trial anyway. This nutter is obviously a complex individual, the police still don't know what the motive was - you release info of that type when racist thugs are already trying to smash up mosques and you just fuel the speculation that it was an Islamic extremist attack. You know all about jumping to those conclusions.

Obviously the more transparency the better but the most important thing is getting justice.

You're right, the label doesn't really matter. I was just responding because some seem to think there was a cover up and that justified the carnage that followed. If the police are unsure of the motive they are not going to come out and say it is terrorism.

He may well have been. I'm just trying to explain to shit-for-brains why the police didn't treat it at terrorism at the time.

He wasn't arrested for just owning Mein Kampf. "The manuals had instructions on how to make explosive devices, and how to kill quickly and efficiently with a blade."

To kill people obviously. Nutters kill people all the time, that doesn't necessarily make them all terrorists.

The police were not wrong, they just said the motive was unclear that's why they didn't treat it as terrorism. Having an al-Qaeda training manual doesn't prove motive.

He is obviously a sick fuck and as mad as a box of frogs but that does not necessarily make him a terrorist. From the Merseyside Police Chief Constable: “We will never know why he did it," she said, adding: "What we can say is that from all those documents no one ideology was uncovered, and that is why this was not treated as terrorism."

“Drill baby drill”, “liquid gold” - looks like any attempts to limit the effects of climate change will have been put back by a decade.

“Police have found no evidence that the Southport attack was motivated by political, religious, racial or ideological causes, meaning it cannot be classed as an act of terrorism despite him having possession of a document proscribed under terrorism laws.” That was from the report on the Guardian.

I disagree, I think that's a defeatist attitude - there has to be a two state solution there somewhere. It is further away than ever now though.