Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

[Turkish]

Just now, aintforever said:

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.

Yes you probably do need to explain it to yourself as you've made yourself look a cock again.

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

This guy was both imo. 

He ticks every box doesn't im really not sure what aintclever is arguing about. I dont think even he does.

[egg]

Just now, Turkish said:

He ticks every box doesn't im really not sure what aintclever is arguing about. I dont think even he does.

Reading the stuff he read could just about be passed off as being inquisitive. Once he's implemented terrorist instructions, I think it indisputable that he's a terrorist. 

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Reading the stuff he read could just about be passed off as being inquisitive. Once he's implemented terrorist instructions, I think it indisputable that he's a terrorist. 

Yep agreed. Im sure we've all googled loads of stuff in the past that isn't a crime, acting on it is.  it isn't a huge leap to join the dots together of all the stuff he had, researched and then carried out. Im really not sure why or how anyone can argue otherwise. Yet im "shit for brains" apparently 👍

[whelk]

I don’t know why people care so much about the label. We need transparency but authorities err on side of caution by often saying not terror related but only as not established the action is on behalf of a defined cause and don’t like calling early. Doesn’t seem he was getting instruction from anyone and more a bloodthirsty psychopath with no wider ideology. It doesn’t really matter though but equally authorities need to be honest if shouting Allahu Akbar etc rather than at pains to try to divert people from blaming Islamic fundamentalists and need to be as transparent as they can be as early as possible. It isn’t necessarily irresponsible to then change based on more info.

Watched the recent 7/7 bombing documentaries and they early called that not thought to be suicide bombers. Based on fuck all other than Madrid bombing weren’t suicides.

These cunts that shoot up schools in US often have deranged right wing beliefs but not part of any wider action so not terrorists and just nihilistic. 

Edited Tuesday at 11:54 by whelk

[aintforever]

29 minutes ago, whelk said:

I don’t know why people care so much about the label. We need transparency but authorities err on side of caution by often saying not terror related but only as not established the action is on behalf of a defined cause and don’t like calling early. Doesn’t seem he was getting instruction from anyone and more a bloodthirsty psychopath with no wider ideology. It doesn’t really matter though but equally authorities need to be honest if shouting Allahu Akbar etc rather than at pains to try to divert people from blaming Islamic fundamentalists and need to be as transparent as they can be as early as possible. It isn’t necessarily irresponsible to then change based on more info.

Watched the recent 7/7 bombing documentaries and they early called that not thought to be suicide bombers. Based on fuck all other than Madrid bombing weren’t suicides.

These cunts that shoot up schools in US often have deranged right wing beliefs but not part of any wider action so not terrorists and just nihilistic. 

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.

[Turkish]

I guess given what's come out now is the "mis-information" that we were told was spread on social media not actually mis-information at all?
 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I guess given what's come out now is the "mis-information" that we were told was spread on social media not actually mis-information at all?
 

Apparently the home secretary is contacting social media companies asking them to remove 'dangerous content' that Rudakubana supposedly accessed. Firstly why wasn't this done earlier as presumably this was known about months ago? Unless it's being done for PR purposes now. Secondly what is this dangerous content? If it's illegal like the terrorist manual then that is covered under existing laws and should already be removed. You could be suspicious that they are using this incident to further censor speech they don't like. 

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Reading the stuff he read could just about be passed off as being inquisitive. Once he's implemented terrorist instructions, I think it indisputable that he's a terrorist. 

I think it's clear that as they didn't find evidence of an underlying ideology motivating his crimes, they didn't think that it met the current definition of a terrorist attack under the letter of the law. Starmer basically admitted that he is clearly a terrorist and that the current definition as written is wrong and that he will change it. 

My main issue is Starmer's claim that he wasn't able to mention the bit about ricin or the terrorist manual as it could collapse the court case. This strikes me as untrue as firstly that information came out prior to the court case in any even and secondly none of that information would have any chance of collapsing the case. A cynic would suggest this information was deliberately withheld from the public in order to try not to pour petrol on the flames of anger in the aftermath. I understand that line of thinking but withholding it has really just further undermined public trust in the authorities. Complete bollocks imo that releasing that information would have had any chance of collapsing a court case. 

Edited Tuesday at 13:53 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

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.

There clearly was a cover up at the time as information was withheld from the public with threat of arrest when the information that is now known would have had a 0% chance of collapsing a court case. All it's done is undermined public trust in institutions. I agree with whelk, full transparency as early as possible required. 

[aintforever]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

There clearly was a cover up at the time as information was withheld from the public with threat of arrest when the information that is now known would have had a 0% chance of collapsing a court case. All it's done is undermined public trust in institutions. I agree with whelk, full transparency as early as possible required. 

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

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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

Delaying information from being released for months when it was released prior to the trial anyway had no bearing on justice. Information liable to collapse a trial or cause contempt of court should obviously not be released but there was none here. It was clearly withheld because Starmer didn't want to make people angrier than they already were. 

Edited Tuesday at 14:14 by hypochondriac

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, Turkish said:

Im sure quite a lot of people would say it would. In fact that's often been used as evidence to prove someone is so a really bad example.

What reason would any one have for having an al-Qaeda training manual?

The chapter on looking after goats has some incredibly useful tips?

[Turkish]

52 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I think it's clear that as they didn't find evidence of an underlying ideology motivating his crimes, they didn't think that it met the current definition of a terrorist attack under the letter of the law. Starmer basically admitted that he is clearly a terrorist and that the current definition as written is wrong and that he will change it. 

My main issue is Starmer's claim that he wasn't able to mention the bit about ricin or the terrorist manual as it could collapse the court case. This strikes me as untrue as firstly that information came out prior to the court case in any even and secondly none of that information would have any chance of collapsing the case. A cynic would suggest this information was deliberately withheld from the public in order to try not to pour petrol on the flames of anger in the aftermath. I understand that line of thinking but withholding it has really just further undermined public trust in the authorities. Complete bollocks imo that releasing that information would have had any chance of collapsing a court case. 

It could also be suggested that Starmer did that himself by immediately labelling anyone who protested as "far right" and all the shit he spouted about the EDL. You might think that was a deliberate act to deflect the attention.

 

Edited Tuesday at 14:45 by Turkish

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

It could also be suggested that Starmer did that himself by immediately labelling anyone who protested as "far right" and all the shit he spouted about the EDL. You might think that was a deliberate act to deflect the attention.

 

Just like the attack is now being blamed on the internet to justify draconian censorship measures. Yes some people engaged in unacceptable violent disorder in the immediate aftermath when emotions were running high and were rightly punished but some were jailed for extraordinary amounts of time in what was a disproportionate response. When Rayner dismissed links to terrorism as 'fake news' and 'conspiracy theories' this is a lie given that she would have known that that is exactly what it was and as Starmer has admitted it was now. 

Like I said, I understand the desire for short term gain by withholding the information and lying about the circumstances of the attack but longer term it's going to be incredibly damaging. The next Radukabana, why will anyone believe anything the authorities tell them about what happened? 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Delaying information from being released for months when it was released prior to the trial anyway had no bearing on justice. Information liable to collapse a trial or cause contempt of court should obviously not be released but there was none here. It was clearly withheld because Starmer didn't want to make people angrier than they already were. 

Great point. 
 

Within a few hours they would have known pretty much everything . It’s bizarre to suggest that it would have collapsed the trial in the summer, but not late in ‘24 when they did release the information. The powers that be may think withholding  some of this until the situation had calmed down a bit was the right thing to do (and some people may agree), but they should admit that’s what they did. To try and pretend they didn’t, is taking the public for fools and further damaging trust in the authorities. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

Great point. 
 

Within a few hours they would have known pretty much everything . It’s bizarre to suggest that it would have collapsed the trial in the summer, but not late in ‘24 when they did release the information. The powers that be may think withholding  some of this until the situation had calmed down a bit was the right thing to do (and some people may agree), but they should admit that’s what they did. To try and pretend they didn’t, is taking the public for fools and further damaging trust in the authorities. 

I hope someone asks them about it and pushes for a proper answer. Overall I thought the speech from Starmer was pretty good. I wasn't a fan of pushing online censorship but he is suggesting that heads will roll and we won't shy away from dealing with identity issues and integration (remains to be seen if it's just words of course.) 

Like you say though we need some honesty including where the government have failed. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I hope someone asks them about it and pushes for a proper answer

Somebody did. But Starmer just waffled on about jeopardising a fair trial. Disingenuous and inconsistent (as you’ve pointed out), but this will be “the line to take”.
 

Any other awkward questions will be fibbed off with “wait for the enquiry “. From the date of the trial, through the timing of todays press conference, to the enquiry, British establishment crisis management at its finest. 

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Delaying information from being released for months when it was released prior to the trial anyway had no bearing on justice. Information liable to collapse a trial or cause contempt of court should obviously not be released but there was none here. It was clearly withheld because Starmer didn't want to make people angrier than they already were. 

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.

[hypochondriac]

21 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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.

But we got the terrorist training manual and ricin details prior to the trial. Why was the only photo released him as a 12 year old? There was clearly a concerted effort to obscure facts from the public and it erodes public trust and makes politicians seem untrustworthy (with good reason!). 

[Lord Duckhunter]

30 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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.

Why not come out and say that then? Starmer is claiming releasing the information in the summer would be prejudicial towards a fair trail.
 

That’s not true as they released the information eventually and didn’t cause a mistrial . Surely lying is something they’ve done wrong? 

Edited Tuesday at 17:31 by Lord Duckhunter

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

26 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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.

I am not sure you have to be Hercule Poirot to know what the motive was. As somebody pointed out the authorities should have been honest with why they did not say at the time. Most of us would have nodded along but the fact they haven't, makes me uncomfortable.

[hypochondriac]

40 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Why not come out and say that then? Starmer is claiming releasing the information in the summer would be prejudicial towards a fair trail.
 

That’s not true as they released the information eventually and didn’t cause a mistrial . Surely lying is something they’ve done wrong? 

Precisely. Either the information was able to be released without collapsing the trial - in which case it should have been released when he was arrested and Starmer lied about it collapsing the trial - or it was sensitive information so it shouldn't have been released a few months later prior to the trial. It's one of those. 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Why not come out and say that then? Starmer is claiming releasing the information in the summer would be prejudicial towards a fair trail.
 

That’s not true as they released the information eventually and didn’t cause a mistrial . Surely lying is something they’ve done wrong? 

What a load of old pony. You are just desperate to label him as an Islamic terrorist when he is clearly a very disturbed individual. I think Starmer knows a bit more about legal procedures than some Islamophobic keyboard warrior on a football forum. I know it is tough on you as it puts Farage and those who tried to pretend he was some kind of Islamist illegal migrant in a different light. It was they who lied.

[aintforever]

24 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

the information was able to be released without collapsing the trial - in which case it should have been released when he was arrested

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?

[egg]

4 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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?

It wasn't in the public interests to release information that would a) inflame public feeling, and b) jeopardise the criminal investigation/trial. Both seem like genuine concerns.

What's telling to me is this perception that people have a right to know stuff that they don't actually need to know. The key here was convicting this loon and we've done that. 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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?

Because as the reviewer of terrorist legislation makes clear, failure to properly inform the public undermines public trust in the government and creates an information vacuum which encourages conspiracy theory and misinformation to spread

There's also plenty of other examples where key information has been released before trial. It's hard to conclude that the withholding of information was deliberate and that the excuse that it would collapse the trial is a flimsy excuse to cover up the government actions. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

It wasn't in the public interests to release information that would a) inflame public feeling, and b) jeopardise the criminal investigation/trial. Both seem like genuine concerns.

What's telling to me is this perception that people have a right to know stuff that they don't actually need to know. The key here was convicting this loon and we've done that. 

Then be honest and state that. It came out anyway and arguably has done more damage longer term to undermine trust in the government and institutions. 

Edited Tuesday at 18:53 by hypochondriac

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Because as the reviewer of terrorist legislation makes clear, failure to properly inform the public undermines public trust in the government and creates an information vacuum which encourages conspiracy theory and misinformation to spread

There's also plenty of other examples where key information has been released before trial. It's hard to conclude that the withholding of information was deliberate and that the excuse that it would collapse the trial is a flimsy excuse to cover up the government actions. 

That's one perspective. Another is that telling angry people stuff that will fuel their anger is another. 

I think people encourage their own conspiracies, and an unchecked SM gives them a platform to air them, and have others fan the flames. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Then be honest and state that. It came out anyway and arguably has done more damage longer term to undermine trust in the government and institutions. 

There's no way of safely saying, and I paraphrase, "we ain't telling you knuckle draggers what we know cos we don't trust to react like decent human beings". It's tue that a criminal process could have been prejudiced, and it's equally true that the public did not need to know any more - yearning for information in some quarters  is not the test, it's about public interest. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

There's no way of safely saying, and I paraphrase, "we ain't telling you knuckle draggers what we know cos we don't trust to react like decent human beings". It's tue that a criminal process could have been prejudiced, and it's equally true that the public did not need to know any more - yearning for information in some quarters  is not the test, it's about public interest. 

I'm aware that the government has an incredibly low opinion of the British public-they demonstrate it frequently-but releasing the information prior to the trial anyway suggests they are being dishonest about it prejudicing the trial. If that were true then it would have been released during the trial or immediately afterwards and not months before. 

Besides, they've had no such scruples about allowing extra information on previous occasions when suspects have been arrested. There's definitely a case here that the cover up of information inflamed the situation and made the rioting worse. The next terror attack we have the same thing will happen except this time people will be more certain that the government is dismissing legitimate concerns as conspiracy theories when in actuality there was truth in what was being alleged (not all clearly). 

[egg]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm aware that the government has an incredibly low opinion of the British public-they demonstrate it frequently-but releasing the information prior to the trial anyway suggests they are being dishonest about it prejudicing the trial. If that were true then it would have been released during the trial or immediately afterwards and not months before. 

Besides, they've had no such scruples about allowing extra information on previous occasions when suspects have been arrested. There's definitely a case here that the cover up of information inflamed the situation and made the rioting worse. The next terror attack we have the same thing will happen except this time people will be more certain that the government is dismissing legitimate concerns as conspiracy theories when in actuality there was truth in what was being alleged (not all clearly). 

It's a very simple issue. The wider public were not benefited by knowing more than they did. None of us needed to know that he had a manual and knocked up ricin.

I repeat, a perception of an entitlement to information is not the test, it's what's in the public interests. We got the right outcome which suggests that it was dealt with properly. 

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

It's a very simple issue. The wider public were not benefited by knowing more than they did. None of us needed to know that he had a manual and knocked up ricin.

I repeat, a perception of an entitlement to information is not the test, it's what's in the public interests. We got the right outcome which suggests that it was dealt with properly. 

Bizarre logic. There's no evidence whatsoever that releasing the information and not creating an information vacuum would have had any effect at all on the outcome of this case. The fact that this very clear cut case got a guilty verdict was not influenced at all by the cover up of this information (and the subsequent insistence by Starmer that the cover up was due to the court case collapsing) as evidenced by the fact that the information was released prior to the trial with no detrimental effect whatsoever and previous trials where information of this nature has been released prior to trial. It's an excuse and a lie to suggest that releasing it earlier would have collapsed the trial. At least if they were honest and said they hid it from the public because they didn't want to upset anyone you could kind of understand it even if you disagreed. Why did Rayner say the idea that this attack was terror related was fake news and a conspiracy theory when we now know that it is terror related as confirmed by Starmer today. 

It begs the question what else has the government been covering up for the public's own good? 

 ‘institutions will not continue to enjoy the trust that they have had to date if there is any general sense that things are being hidden’.

Edited Tuesday at 19:35 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

On 20/01/2025 at 18:44, whelk said:

Prevent is pretty there to stop Islamic extremism.

Interesting. It seems that Prevent may have been 'prevented' from doing it's job effectively due to a fear of being seen as racist or islamophobic. You could make the same argument for the longevity of the Islamic rape gangs scandal. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, egg said:

It wasn't in the public interests to release information that would a) inflame public feeling, and b) jeopardise the criminal investigation/trial. Both seem like genuine concerns.

B cant be a legitimate reason, otherwise they wouldn’t have released the details 2 months before the trial.

If it was A then why did Starmer not say this when asked today?

 

Starmer could have said today that the decision was made in the public interest to calm things down immediately after the arrest.(which is obviously what happened). But he didnt, he basically came out with a load of old pony when specifically questioned on it. 
 

Ive no doubt had a whhite knuckle dragger been arrested. A Tommy Robinson book been found and a EDL membership card (if such a thing exists) , together with ricin, I’m pretty sure those details would have been released. I’m also pretty sure the only picture of the suspect in the MSM  wouldn’t have been him looking like Just William off to middle school. 

Edited Tuesday at 19:59 by Lord Duckhunter

[hypochondriac]

33 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

B cant be a legitimate reason, otherwise they wouldn’t have released the details 2 months before the trial.

If it was A then why did Starmer not say this when asked today?

 

Starmer could have said today that the decision was made in the public interest to calm things down immediately after the arrest.(which is obviously what happened). But he didnt, he basically came out with a load of old pony when specifically questioned on it. 
 

Ive no doubt had a whhite knuckle dragger been arrested. A Tommy Robinson book been found and a EDL membership card (if such a thing exists) , together with ricin, I’m pretty sure those details would have been released. I’m also pretty sure the only picture of the suspect in the MSM  wouldn’t have been him looking like Just William off to middle school. 

If he really didn't want to say anything, Starmer could have easily said at the time "we believe that this attack was terror motivated. There are additional details to this case but it is not appropriate to release them at this time due to the criminal process. More information will be made public at its conclusion." 

Oh and I sure soggy could let you know if an EDL membership card exists. He's the forum authority on all thing EDL and Tommy Robinson. 

Edited Tuesday at 20:21 by hypochondriac

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

There's definitely a case here that the cover up of information inflamed the situation and made the rioting worse.

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.

 

Edited Tuesday at 20:52 by aintforever

[egg]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

B cant be a legitimate reason, otherwise they wouldn’t have released the details 2 months before the trial.

If it was A then why did Starmer not say this when asked today?

 

Starmer could have said today that the decision was made in the public interest to calm things down immediately after the arrest.(which is obviously what happened). But he didnt, he basically came out with a load of old pony when specifically questioned on it. 
 

Ive no doubt had a whhite knuckle dragger been arrested. A Tommy Robinson book been found and a EDL membership card (if such a thing exists) , together with ricin, I’m pretty sure those details would have been released. I’m also pretty sure the only picture of the suspect in the MSM  wouldn’t have been him looking like Just William off to middle school. 

A) will never be said, and B) is a timing issue. 

Moreover, none of us have a right to this information. For whatever reason people feel an entitlement to it, but they shouldn't.

People need to get over themselves. 

[egg]

15 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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'm with you on the first part, that's all pretty obvious. 

I can't agree on the second part tho. 

[Turkish]

24 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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.

 

There were no riots after Manchester Arena

There were no riots after Lee Rigby

There were no riots after 7/7

There were no riots after London Bridge

When some of these events happened the EDL, who were supposedly responsible for the summer riots were in their prime. They no longer exists. Perhaps there is a case that the withholding of information, the deflection onto the far right, the what appear to be false accusations of misinformation actually inflamed things even more for the one occasion there were riots. 

PS - i know you're going to struggle to get your head round this as it isn't spelt out for you and you have to think about it, shit for brains.

Edited Tuesday at 21:16 by Turkish

[aintforever]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm with you on the first part, that's all pretty obvious. 

I can't agree on the second part tho. 

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. 

[aintforever]

11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

 what appear to be false accusations of misinformation actually inflamed things even more for the one occasion there were riots. 

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

Edited Tuesday at 21:28 by aintforever

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

That’s just complete bollocks, there was all sorts of misinformation about him being an illegal immigrant etc.

So you’ve ignored the rest of my post and just commented on that? I knew you’d struggle 

[egg]

24 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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. 

Doing terrorist stuff from a terrorist instruction manual is enough for me. The inquiry will reveal more though, and more importantly, will hopefully reduce the prospects of anything like this happening again. That should be the focus. 

[aintforever]

12 minutes ago, Turkish said:

So you’ve ignored the rest of my post and just commented on that? I knew you’d struggle 

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. 

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Doing terrorist stuff from a terrorist instruction manual is enough for me. The inquiry will reveal more though, and more importantly, will hopefully reduce the prospects of anything like this happening again. That should be the focus. 

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.

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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. 

“The usual racists” who said the perpetrator wasn’t a nice Welsh, church going,  choir boy like we were meant to believe? 

[aintforever]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

“The usual racists” who said the perpetrator wasn’t a nice Welsh, church going,  choir boy like we were meant to believe? 

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

Edited Tuesday at 21:56 by aintforever

[whelk]

Weren’t most of the riots more just a case of people being fucked off with immigration? The Southport killings kicked it off but don’t think these twats rioting  in Rotherham etc were concerned about those events and what info was coming out 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

48 minutes ago, aintforever said:

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. 

So why was he referred to Prevent three times?