|
|
Post by witchfinder on Jul 31, 2024 10:59:39 GMT
NO ONE has confirmed that the perp HAS any connection to Islam No Cover Up - If you dont understand the basics of law in relation to minors, then perhaps it ought to be pointed out to you that the law is very clear ... any person charged with any criminal offence who is a minor ( under the age of 18 ) cannot be named. They know full well by now if he had links or not, and if the riots continue then it's down to them not coming clean, if they want to stop the civil unrest then they need to come clean, how many times are they going to cover up these racist hate crimes for fear of repercussions to the Muslim communities, constantly protecting one set of people is causing civil unrest with the other. Perhaps theres something you dont understand ? What has been clearly stated so far is that the attack was not terror related - that the person arrested was originally from Cardiff - that he was born in Wales - that the name(s) banded around on social media are not the name of the suspect held. The police will indeed know everything about the suspect held, but they are not at liberty to release his name, they do not have a choice in the matter, they are governed by The Law. The only way to stop the thuggery by the EDL from outside the Southport area is for the EDL thugs NOT to wreak havoc on the grieving community of Southport. There is no cover-up, its all in your imagination, and you have absolutely no idea what so ever as to whether this was a "racist crime", you are guessing, because to suggest it was racist inspired fits in with your way of thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 31, 2024 11:03:50 GMT
They know full well by now if he had links or not, and if the riots continue then it's down to them not coming clean, if they want to stop the civil unrest then they need to come clean, how many times are they going to cover up these racist hate crimes for fear of repercussions to the Muslim communities, constantly protecting one set of people is causing civil unrest with the other. Perhaps theres something you dont understand ? What has been clearly stated so far is that the attack was not terror related - that the person arrested was originally from Cardiff - that he was born in Wales - that the name(s) banded around on social media are not the name of the suspect held. The police will indeed know everything about the suspect held, but they are not at liberty to release his name, they do not have a choice in the matter, they are governed by The Law. The only way to stop the thuggery by the EDL from outside the Southport area is for the EDL thugs NOT to wreak havoc on the grieving community of Southport. There is no cover-up, its all in your imagination, and you have absolutely no idea what so ever as to whether this was a "racist crime", you are guessing, because to suggest it was racist inspired fits in with your way of thinking. Don't be daft at first the police said the 17 year old 'suspect' was born in the UK, then it said his parents move to the UK 15 years ago from Rwanda, do the maths. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 11:05:37 GMT
Regardless of the identity of the rioters, rioting in this instance is correct. How else, but by force, are we to eject a criminal government? . We do not have a Criminal Government. What you mean, but lack the balls to say so, is that "Rioting is OK as long as you agree with it, when you don't agree with it then it is thugs that need stamping on". Grow a spine, admit your are a right wing thug. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 31, 2024 11:07:35 GMT
NO ONE has confirmed that the perp HAS any connection to Islam No Cover Up - If you dont understand the basics of law in relation to minors, then perhaps it ought to be pointed out to you that the law is very clear ... any person charged with any criminal offence who is a minor ( under the age of 18 ) cannot be named. They know full well by now if he had links or not, and if the riots continue then it's down to them not coming clean, if they want to stop the civil unrest then they need to come clean, how many times are they going to cover up these racist hate crimes for fear of repercussions to the Muslim communities, constantly protecting one set of people is causing civil unrest with the other. FairSociety making things up and trying to present as fact. What a surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 11:08:55 GMT
Here's the inbred, moronic logic of these rioters. 1) The attacker in the horrific Southport incident may have been Muslim. 2) That makes all Muslims responsible. 3) We can attack a Mosque just for the fun of it. From that we get: 1) The rioters in Southport may have been Far-Right EDL Members. 2) That makes all Far-Right EDL Members responsible. 3) We can now attack Far-Right EDL Members just for the fun of it. The EDL is clearly happy to use violence, intimidation, and law-breaking as a means to disseminate their political ideology. That, de facto, makes the EDL a Terrorist Organisation. The leaders of the EDL should face the same kinds of sanctions that Anjem Choudary has justifiably faced. All The Best And they've already confirmed that the perp had no connection to Islam, but that's irrelevant to these law abiding rioters. Have they? Do you have a source for that, because I have not seen such? Of course, even if he was a Muslim that does not necessarily mean his faith had anything to do with the attack. Otherwise all Catholics would be Kiddie-Fiddlers. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 31, 2024 11:09:25 GMT
They know full well by now if he had links or not, and if the riots continue then it's down to them not coming clean, if they want to stop the civil unrest then they need to come clean, how many times are they going to cover up these racist hate crimes for fear of repercussions to the Muslim communities, constantly protecting one set of people is causing civil unrest with the other. FairSociety making things up and trying to present as fact. What a surprise. just like andrea confirming the suspect had no terrorist links ... he obviously has inside information not yet released to the public. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 11:25:01 GMT
FairSociety making things up and trying to present as fact. What a surprise. just like andrea confirming the suspect had no terrorist links ... he obviously has inside information not yet released to the public. You are aware that in this country someone is innocent until proven guilty. That means a suspect does not have to prove they have no links to terrorism, it is up to our legal and judicial process to prove they do. Right now there is not one single shred of tangible evidence that the suspect has links to terrorism; ergo, until such time as such evidence becomes apparent, he is not a terror suspect. End of. What you are saying is that you don't believe in the rule of law, are you sure you want to do that. I mean those who don't believe in the rule of law get laid on the floor in a Manchester Airport and then have their heads stamped on... ..right? You seem to be saying the state should be doing that to you. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 31, 2024 11:28:57 GMT
just like andrea confirming the suspect had no terrorist links ... he obviously has inside information not yet released to the public. That means a suspect does not have to prove they have no links to terrorism, it is up to our legal and judicial process to prove they do. Right now there is not one single shred of tangible evidence that the suspect has links to terrorism; ergo, until such time as such evidence becomes apparent, he is not a terror suspect. End of. What you are saying is that you don't believe in the rule of law, are you sure you want to do that. I mean those who don't believe in the rule of law get laid on the floor in a Manchester Airport and then have their heads stamped on... ..right? You seem to be saying the state should be doing that to you. All The Best That's odd coming from you, shame you never felt that way about the Manchester Airport police officers |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 11:33:37 GMT
You are aware that in this country someone is innocent until proven guilty.That means a suspect does not have to prove they have no links to terrorism, it is up to our legal and judicial process to prove they do. Right now there is not one single shred of tangible evidence that the suspect has links to terrorism; ergo, until such time as such evidence becomes apparent, he is not a terror suspect. End of. What you are saying is that you don't believe in the rule of law, are you sure you want to do that. I mean those who don't believe in the rule of law get laid on the floor in a Manchester Airport and then have their heads stamped on... ..right? You seem to be saying the state should be doing that to you. All The Best That's odd coming from you, shame you never felt that way about the Manchester Airport police officers Well, when there's multiple video source of some engaged in wrongdoing, and highly likely criminal wrongdoing at that, it tends to be a bit easier to call it out. Furthermore, I have stated that if an investigation concludes the officer did no wrong I will accept that. However, those who think the Police Officer did nothing wrong have already said they will reject any outcome that concludes the PO did do wrong. From which it can be seen that I believe in the Rule Of Law even if returns verdicts I do not like; while the opposite side of the debate only believe in the Rule of Law when it returns verdicts they agree with. You really need to try harder, this is embarrassingly easy. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 31, 2024 11:37:28 GMT
That's odd coming from you, shame you never felt that way about the Manchester Airport police officers Well, when there's multiple video source of some engaged in wrongdoing, and highly likely criminal wrongdoing at that, it tends to be a bit easier to call it out. Furthermore, I have stated that if an investigation concludes the officer did no wrong I will accept that. However, those who think the Police Officer did nothing wrong have already said they will reject any outcome that concludes the PO did do wrong. From which it can be seen that I believe in the Rule Of Law even if returns verdicts I do not like; while the opposite side of the debate only believe in the Rule of Law when it returns verdicts they agree with. You really need to try harder, this is embarrassingly easy. All The Best Strange how their lawyer changed his tune when he saw what took place 'before' the incident, it's a wonder he wasn't shot dead, thankfully they just restrained the thug. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 11:40:19 GMT
Well, when there's multiple video source of some engaged in wrongdoing, and highly likely criminal wrongdoing at that, it tends to be a bit easier to call it out. Furthermore, I have stated that if an investigation concludes the officer did no wrong I will accept that. However, those who think the Police Officer did nothing wrong have already said they will reject any outcome that concludes the PO did do wrong. From which it can be seen that I believe in the Rule Of Law even if returns verdicts I do not like; while the opposite side of the debate only believe in the Rule of Law when it returns verdicts they agree with. You really need to try harder, this is embarrassingly easy. All The Best Strange how their lawyer changed his tune when he saw what took place 'before' the incident, it's a wonder he wasn't shot dead, thankfully they just restrained the thug. What their lawyer said or did is 100% wholly irrelevant to my views on the subject. Perhaps you should try thinking for yourself, instead of following the baying mob, as well. There was not reasonable grounds to shoot the suspect, he wasn't armed. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 31, 2024 11:47:31 GMT
Strange how their lawyer changed his tune when he saw what took place 'before' the incident, it's a wonder he wasn't shot dead, thankfully they just restrained the thug. What their lawyer said or did is 100% wholly irrelevant to my views on the subject. Perhaps you should try thinking for yourself, instead of following the baying mob, as well. There was not reasonable grounds to shoot the suspect, he wasn't armed.All The Best Irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 31, 2024 11:49:21 GMT
just like andrea confirming the suspect had no terrorist links ... he obviously has inside information not yet released to the public. You are aware that in this country someone is innocent until proven guilty. That means a suspect does not have to prove they have no links to terrorism, it is up to our legal and judicial process to prove they do. Right now there is not one single shred of tangible evidence that the suspect has links to terrorism; ergo, until such time as such evidence becomes apparent, he is not a terror suspect. End of. What you are saying is that you don't believe in the rule of law, are you sure you want to do that. I mean those who don't believe in the rule of law get laid on the floor in a Manchester Airport and then have their heads stamped on... ..right? You seem to be saying the state should be doing that to you. All The Best Auto-contradictory post of the year! 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 11:51:39 GMT
What their lawyer said or did is 100% wholly irrelevant to my views on the subject. Perhaps you should try thinking for yourself, instead of following the baying mob, as well. There was not reasonable grounds to shoot the suspect, he wasn't armed.All The Best Irrelevant. Really? Please do provide us with the police guidelines that permit a an armed officer to show a suspect, one who is already tasered, and on the ground face-down. Have to confess, I couldn't find one the other day when I was looking through the police guidelines for using force on an already subdued suspect. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 31, 2024 12:40:28 GMT
Really? Please do provide us with the police guidelines that permit a an armed officer to show a suspect, one who is already tasered, and on the ground face-down. Have to confess, I couldn't find one the other day when I was looking through the police guidelines for using force on an already subdued suspect. All The Best Irrelevant. Police guidelines, if such exist, do not override the law. It is not illegal to kill someone. It is not illegal to use extreme amounts of force. It is not illegal to stamp on someone's head. It is not illegal to use a pre-emptive strike. The only relevant factor is the justification of that use of force. That is the law. And we haven't heard the officers rationale for his use of force in the circumstances as he saw them to be.It is irrelevant what you think, what I think, what the IOPC think or even what the video(s) show. Use of force is subjective. That is the law. |
|
