Finsbury Park

[Puggit]

JK Rowling copying Corbyn by using a tragic event to score political points - causing a furore on Twitter

[98elise]

SystemParanoia said:

poo at Paul's said:

SystemParanoia said:

Why was he not shot ?

why has he be taken to a plush hospital instead of a cell ?

nice to see how they treat the privileged

You seem to be the privileged one, why the fk you haven't been banned from PH yet, I just done know. Where's that guy with the hotline to Hessletine's secretary when we need him?

im not attacking or insulting anyone unlike many in this thread, yourself included.

i simply have a contrary and unpopular opinion to you and your cursing shouty friends

You post remarks based on skin colour alone. That's quite insulting. In this thread you have suggested police didn't shoot the driver because he looks the same as them.

Look at the colour of the met police spokesman, look at the line of police on the cordon. Is it all white people?

You have a very personal agenda which shows all the hallmarks of the very things you seem to be against.

[Derek Smith]

It didn't take long for this thread to collapse into cheap point scoring.

[anonymous-user]

Toyoda said:

fido said:

I'm already waiting for the Facebook adornments from the sheeple.

Yep, the vitriol spitting liberal activists will be all over this.

Yeah I'm there on Facebook angrily waiting for it to start!

Wtf? Waiting on social media to read stuff (presumably that your friends write) that you think will upset you?

[R1gtr]

Terrible incident, the BBC is reporting that 'Muslims feel scared'. Now is maybe the time then to put a couple of armed cops outside every one and a couple of trained anti-terror detectives inside. Protect them from far right nutters and also investigate from the inside any Islamic extremism.
Kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

[Puggit]

R1gtr said:

Terrible incident, the BBC is reporting that 'Muslims feel scared'. Now is maybe the time then to put a couple of armed cops outside every one and a couple of trained anti-terror detectives inside. Protect them from far right nutters and also investigate from the inside any Islamic extremism.
Kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

I've no idea how many mosques there are - but in the same way that not every concert or station can be protected, then so can not every mosque. The greatest protection that mosques can gain is by handing over (and in some cases continuing to hand over) the extremists in their midst, and being seen to do so.

[CAPP0]

Oceanic said:

berlintaxi said:

So when does a hate crime become a terrorist attack?

When it meets the criteria for being a terrorist attack, which this sad incident has obviously done.

Genuine question. I am *not* trying to be inflammatory and I don't for one millisecond condone this incident.

OED describes terrorism as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". Whilst, assuming that this was indeed a deliberate act and played out as some have described, it was definitely terror-related, there's no suggestion yet that the accused was carrying out an act based on the pursuit of political aims. Not unless he turns out to be the leader of the Pontyclun People's Liberation Army. On that basis, is this not more accurately described as a "revenge" attack rather than terrorism?

[Colonial]

CAPP0 said:

Genuine question. I am *not* trying to be inflammatory and I don't for one millisecond condone this incident.

OED describes terrorism as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". Whilst, assuming that this was indeed a deliberate act and played out as some have described, it was definitely terror-related, there's no suggestion yet that the accused was carrying out an act based on the pursuit of political aims. Not unless he turns out to be the leader of the Pontyclun People's Liberation Army. On that basis, is this not more accurately described as a "revenge" attack rather than terrorism?

With so much stuff flying around the air at the moment, it's hard to tell, but if reports of him shouting "I've done my bit" are true, then the motives were political in nature, making it more of a terrorist attack.

If it was an attack on the people responsible for an incident, then it would be more revenge.

[ReallyReallyGood]

CAPP0 said:

On that basis, is this not more accurately described as a "revenge" attack rather than terrorism?

Can't it be both?

[rscott]

CAPP0 said:

Oceanic said:

berlintaxi said:

So when does a hate crime become a terrorist attack?

When it meets the criteria for being a terrorist attack, which this sad incident has obviously done.

Genuine question. I am *not* trying to be inflammatory and I don't for one millisecond condone this incident.

OED describes terrorism as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". Whilst, assuming that this was indeed a deliberate act and played out as some have described, it was definitely terror-related, there's no suggestion yet that the accused was carrying out an act based on the pursuit of political aims. Not unless he turns out to be the leader of the Pontyclun People's Liberation Army. On that basis, is this not more accurately described as a "revenge" attack rather than terrorism?

I'd assume the police use the definition from the 2000 Terrorism Act:-

act said:

Section 1
(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious[, racial][3] or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

I could see this easily meets 1b2 and subsection 2. Whether it meets 1c is hard to say without knowing if the claims about what he is alleged to have said are true.

[Digga]

ReallyReallyGood said:

CAPP0 said:

On that basis, is this not more accurately described as a "revenge" attack rather than terrorism?

Can't it be both?

It's abhorrent, but also rather inevitable. Muslim or non-Muslim, there are always nutters looking for a cause to justify their deluded, violent fantasies.

IMHO it's more likely to be lone wolf than organised, but if it's not terrorism, then what is?

[anonymous-user]

Sorry if I'm missing the point but what's the significance of whether it was a terrorist or revenge or whatever kind of attack?

Is it to do with people saying only Muslims are doing the terrorist thing or how it's being reported in the media and whether it indicates some kind of bias or are people just interested in how stuff gets classified?

[andy_s]

CAPP0 said:

Genuine question. I am *not* trying to be inflammatory and I don't for one millisecond condone this incident.

OED describes terrorism as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". Whilst, assuming that this was indeed a deliberate act and played out as some have described, it was definitely terror-related, there's no suggestion yet that the accused was carrying out an act based on the pursuit of political aims. Not unless he turns out to be the leader of the Pontyclun People's Liberation Army. On that basis, is this not more accurately described as a "revenge" attack rather than terrorism?

The OED isn't the lawful definition;

First it needs to involve either/or serious violence against a person, serious damage to property, endangering a person's life, etc
AND
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, racial or ideological cause.

[andy_s]

El stovey said:

Sorry if I'm missing the point but what's the significance of whether it was a terrorist or revenge or whatever kind of attack?

Is it to do with people saying only Muslims are doing the terrorist thing or how it's being reported in the media and whether it indicates some kind of bias or are people just interested in how stuff gets classified?

I think it's more to do with the issue of bias.

[saaby93]

And now they're shifting the blame to the welsh

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-40323929

Welsh hire van, since when did the van know it was welsh
In other incidents, were the vans of English nationality

Sorry the original link

Edited by saaby93 on Monday 19th June 09:37

[rscott]

saaby93 said:

And now they're shifting the blame to the welsh

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-40323929

Welsh hire van, since when did the van know it was welsh
In other incidents, were the vans of English nationality

How dare the police question the company he hired the van from - what's next? Interrogating the suspect, reviewing CCTV?

I'm guessing you've already decided it was a terrorist attack - after all , you seemed to think this was - https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... - just because a van was used...

[jogger1976]

Nice to see a thread on NPE that doesn't have crazy conspiracy theories, casual racism and cheap points scoring from all sides.............oh wait.

[saaby93]

rscott said:

How dare the police question the company he hired the van from - what's next? Interrogating the suspect, reviewing CCTV?

I'm guessing you've already decided it was a terrorist attack - after all , you seemed to think this was - https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... - just because a van was used...

Your guess is wrong I didnt decide anything, just asked the question where is the line

There's nothing wrong with police investigating the place a van is from. It's the reporting that brings in a nationality
Read what I wrote not what you think I wrote

[Munter]

mickk said:

BlackLabel said:

This 'them and us' mentally that we're increasingly seeing is clearly what the perpetrators of such attacks want to see.

So true.

Congratulations are in order to the press I fear. They've managed to work up the masses enough using days and days of coverage of terrible attacks, and in doing so have done the very thing the attackers wanted.

Ah well. Crack on I suppose.

[LocoCoco]

bmw535i suspiciously not posted since this incident.