|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 1, 2022 10:21:55 GMT
I suggest you take your complaint to the police; they say it was not terrorism. The people inside were terrorised. Do you support firebombing? Many people in this once green and pleasant land feel terrorised by the illegal immigrant invasion from the EU state of France. I sense you are not of them. As far as the incident at Dover is concerned and in spite of your obvious outrage, the police are not treating it as a terrorist incident. I feel your angst. www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/firebomb-attack-dover-migrant-centre-25400898 |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 1, 2022 10:37:49 GMT
The precise definition of what is or isn't terrorism is somewhat clouded in mystery. That doesn't feel overly important.
You seemingly sound alarmingly close to regarding someone throwing firebombs at a building containing a significant number of people as being justifiable. Simple question, is that what you are saying?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 1, 2022 10:42:50 GMT
1) It isn't acceptable to firebomb people.
2) France is a safe country.
3) An alarming rate of illegal immigrants who cross by boat drown and something must be done to prevent that, even if the methods of saving lives prove offensive to lefties.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 1, 2022 10:46:04 GMT
It would be very simple to reduce the number of people risking their lives in the channel to zero. It is a political decision pandering to the tabloids to require them to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 1, 2022 10:59:37 GMT
The precise definition of what is or isn't terrorism is somewhat clouded in mystery. That doesn't feel overly important. You seemingly sound alarmingly close to regarding someone throwing firebombs at a building containing a significant number of people as being justifiable. Simple question, is that what you are saying? No, it is not clouded in mystery, the legal definition of what is classed as Terrorism in the UK is in laid out in the Terrorism Act itself. In the UK, the legal definition of terrorism is provided in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This defines terrorism as the use or threat of action which: involves serious violence against a person involves serious damage to property endangers a person’s life creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system In circumstances where: the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. The purpose of the definition in section 1 is not to define a crime of terrorism – virtually any terrorist offence is already a violation of existing criminal law, such as incitement, conspiracy to cause explosions or murder. Instead, section 1 acts as a trigger for the use of other counter-terrorism measures. For example, membership of a proscribed terrorist organisation is a criminal offence under section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000. As and when the Police finish their investigation into the Petrol Bomber the Legal Eagles will declare if his actions come under the above or not |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 1, 2022 11:03:47 GMT
Does it matter, Handyman?
Red seems to be finding it difficult to say whether or not he regards lobbing firebombs at a building containing a significant number of people as justifiable.
I presume you don't have the same difficulty?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 1, 2022 11:16:26 GMT
Does it matter, Handyman? Red seems to be finding it difficult to say whether or not he regards lobbing firebombs at a building containing a significant number of people as justifiable. I presume you don't have the same difficulty? Absolute rubbish, I am not finding it difficult at all. The police are quite rightly not treating it as terrorism, that's because it wasn't terrorism. You obviously, and predictably, disagree. Might I suggest you contact the Kent police and register a complaint. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 1, 2022 11:18:52 GMT
Does it matter, Handyman? Red seems to be finding it difficult to say whether or not he regards lobbing firebombs at a building containing a significant number of people as justifiable. I presume you don't have the same difficulty? The only difficulty I have is trying to understand your lack of Logic and sweeping ill-informed pronouncements, as I stated when the Police have finished their investigation the legal eagles will decide if there is enough evidence to state if his actions came under the Terrorism Act or not. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 1, 2022 11:20:13 GMT
I don't know whether it can be legally defined as terrorism or not Red. As I said I dont think the definition is important.
You and now Hardyman seemingly are finding it difficult to answer a simple question whether you regard someone throwing firebombs at a building containing a significant number of people as being justifiable.
Wow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 1, 2022 11:50:51 GMT
I don't know whether it can be legally defined as terrorism or not Red. As I said I dont think the definition is important. You and now Hardyman seemingly are finding it difficult to answer a simple question whether you regard someone throwing firebombs at a building containing a significant number of people as being justifiable. Wow. What a stupid statement. If someone with mental problems runs around London stabbing people that is not justifiable - if someone with mental problems lobs a couple of petrol bombs that is not justifiable. It's just normal life. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 1, 2022 11:58:04 GMT
I wouldn't necessarily call either instance "normal life" Pacifico, but I agree with you -of course neither instance that you mention be remotely justified, whatever your political opinions.
That's why it is particularly shocking that seemingly Red and Handyman are finding it so difficult to answer a simple question
Do they regard someone throwing firebombs at a building containing a significant number of people as being justifiable?
Not a hard question to answer surely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 1, 2022 12:09:48 GMT
I don't know whether it can be legally defined as terrorism or not Red. As I said I dont think the definition is important. You and now Hardyman seemingly are finding it difficult to answer a simple question whether you regard someone throwing firebombs at a building containing a significant number of people as being justifiable. Wow. Of course you don't know whether it can be defined as terrorism, that's because you don't know what terrorism is. A car bomb that kills 20 people and seriously maims 50 others is an act of terrorism. Randomly stabbing as many people as possible is an act of terrorism. The police have quite rightly said throwing a petrol bomb at a wall is not an act of terrorism. Who'd a thunk it. Get over it. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 1, 2022 12:11:00 GMT
I see Red is still evading the question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2022 13:04:29 GMT
1) It isn't acceptable to firebomb people. 2) France is a safe country. 3) An alarming rate of illegal immigrants who cross by boat drown and something must be done to prevent that, even if the methods of saving lives prove offensive to lefties. Maybe provide free transport for foot passengers on the ferries, Vinny? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 1, 2022 13:14:35 GMT
Maybe not allow illegal immigrants from France in, in the first place.
When they know they're not going to be allowed to live here, they won't risk their lives and die trying to.
|
|
