|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 31, 2024 12:22:28 GMT
But the murders aren't being treated as terror related, oh no no. I wonder how long the police will try to keep up that farcical narrative? We've been down this road To declare the murders a terrorism incident requires proving a motive of intent to terrorise. Whereas to prove murder merely requires proof of the act. The reality is, will they be let out any earlier ? Starmer would probably release terrorists earlier to help his standing with the perpetrators .... |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 31, 2024 12:23:50 GMT
As others have pointed out a Starmer & co are trying to shut this down warning off the two Tory hopefuls from speaking but imo opinion he’s covering himself. They say say the accused must have a fair trial so no comments should be made,this of course is true but and as I’ve made it clear that though I have little time for those who riot and attack the police shouldn’t they have been afforded the same but we had Starmer forcefully commenting they can and will face the full force of the law and they were fast tracked and did. So it’s for this and other reasons people question his actions and rightfully so. linkPower has gone to this nutters head, he's even trying to gag the opposition, what's he going to do have ...THE FULL FORCE OF THE LAW.. come crashing down on them, Badenoch and Jenrick locked up for spreading misinformation .... LOL the daft bastard. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 31, 2024 15:38:50 GMT
But the murders aren't being treated as terror related, oh no no. I wonder how long the police will try to keep up that farcical narrative? We've been down this road To declare the murders a terrorism incident requires proving a motive of intent to terrorise. I dont get this - if we hadn't been able to find out the motivation of the 9/11 attackers would that have made crashing aircraft into tower blocks a non-terror incident? |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 31, 2024 15:56:34 GMT
According to the Media
The two additional charges
On Tuesday, Rudakubana was charged with production of a biological toxin contrary to Section 1 of the Biological Weapons Act 1974.
He has also been charged with possessing a PDF document of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing to or preparing an act of terrorism, contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. ( IMHO its not a physical act of Terrorism )
Counter Terrorism Police are not currently treating the Southport attack itself as a terrorist incident.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Oct 31, 2024 16:21:17 GMT
Let's top the bullshit.
If it is not terrorism then they were clearly racist murders.
It is not random to travel somewhere miles away and then target a group of people.
If it was random he would have just stabbed the first person he came across.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 31, 2024 17:08:37 GMT
We've been down this road To declare the murders a terrorism incident requires proving a motive of intent to terrorise. I dont get this - if we hadn't been able to find out the motivation of the 9/11 attackers would that have made crashing aircraft into tower blocks a non-terror incident? I'm just quoting what I found on a couple of law sites. I don't 'get' half this 💩 either. But the whole point was the shitbag' got charged with terrorism based crimes for those acts he is alleged to have committed that are explicitly covered under that legislation. In thinking about your question though, I could envisage other motives for crashing a plane. There have been one or two in recent times. Pilot suicide for example. I'm sure it was terrifying, but was that terrorism ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 31, 2024 17:18:52 GMT
I dont get this - if we hadn't been able to find out the motivation of the 9/11 attackers would that have made crashing aircraft into tower blocks a non-terror incident? I'm just quoting what I found on a couple of law sites. I don't 'get' half this 💩 either. But the whole point was the shitbag' got charged with terrorism based crimes for those acts he is alleged to have committed that are explicitly covered under that legislation. In thinking about your question though, I could envisage other motives for crashing a plane. There have been one or two in recent times. Pilot suicide for example. I'm sure it was terrifying, but was that terrorism ?? Well keep all the details about 9/11 the same - a bunch of Arabs hijack a plane and crash it. It we were unaware of their motives then what would the event have been called? - and 'unfortunate accident' maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 31, 2024 18:45:33 GMT
I recall the news coverage of the event. It wasn't until the second plane hit that it became clear it wasn't a terrible accident.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 31, 2024 19:09:37 GMT
I recall the news coverage of the event. It wasn't until the second plane hit that it became clear it wasn't a terrible accident. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 31, 2024 19:26:26 GMT
Let's top the bullshit. If it is not terrorism then they were clearly racist murders. It is not random to travel somewhere miles away and then target a group of people. If it was random he would have just stabbed the first person he came across. Agree, coward targeting the most vulnerable in society childreen, notice the little shitbag never went into a gym on his stabbing spree. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 31, 2024 19:28:59 GMT
Let's top the bullshit. If it is not terrorism then they were clearly racist murders. It is not random to travel somewhere miles away and then target a group of people. If it was random he would have just stabbed the first person he came across. Well if he did tell the Police why he did when he was interviewed will know for certain, if he said nothing or lied we will never know for certain |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 31, 2024 19:33:05 GMT
I recall the news coverage of the event. It wasn't until the second plane hit that it became clear it wasn't a terrible accident. Exactly 100% |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 31, 2024 20:13:29 GMT
I recall the news coverage of the event. It wasn't until the second plane hit that it became clear it wasn't a terrible accident. Exactly 100% In fairness, it was the first crime of this precise nature If the same thing happened again two weeks later... ..and then again ..and again |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 31, 2024 20:27:45 GMT
In fairness, it was the first crime of this precise nature If the same thing happened again two weeks later... ..and then again ..and again Sorry not sure what point you are trying to make. In relation to that attack there was no doubt it was an attack by a Proscribed Terror Group as they claimed responsibility for it and the subsequent investigation across Europe and into the US tracked the Terrorists and proved it |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 31, 2024 20:51:00 GMT
In fairness, it was the first crime of this precise nature If the same thing happened again two weeks later... ..and then again ..and again Sorry not sure what point you are trying to make. In relation to that attack there was no doubt it was an attack by a Proscribed Terror Group as they claimed responsibility for it and the subsequent investigation across Europe and into the US tracked the Terrorists and proved it So.. If an airliner crashed into the empire state building two weeks later, you would form no opinion as to the cause until a Proscribed Terror Group claimed responsibility? |
|
