Finsbury Park

[rscott]

GloverMart said:

I've noticed that 5Live in their news bulletins are saying that Osborne has been arrested on suspicion of murder and other offences.

Guess the guy that died then was killed by Osborne's actions rather than by whatever he was getting treatment for beforehand...

Latest Met Police update:-


The man, arrested on suspicion of the commission, preparation and instigation of terrorism; attempted murder and murder, remains in custody at a south London police station.

The warrant for further detention has been authorised until 00.54hrs on Saturday, 24 June.

A number of people were injured during the attack in which a van collided with pedestrians on Seven Sisters Road in the early hours of Monday, 19 June. One man was pronounced dead at the scene at 01:04hrs.

Inquiries are continuing to establish whether there is any link between his death and the attack.

Two victims were treated by medics at the scene; nine were taken to hospital, where a number received critical care. Today, none of those injured remain in critical care.

[p1stonhead]

Alpinestars said:

Jockman said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-40347813

They've arrested the son of the van hire firm. I think I've entered the twilight zone.

Stupid remark to make.

Lost his job at Eddie Stobart probably too....

Eddie Stobart Logistics said in a statement: “We can confirm that we are aware of the reprehensible remarks made by Richard Gear Evans on social media.
"These remarks in no way reflect the view of Eddie Stobart Logistics and we have taken immediate action."

[Alpinestars]

p1stonhead said:

Alpinestars said:

Jockman said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-40347813

They've arrested the son of the van hire firm. I think I've entered the twilight zone.

Stupid remark to make.

Lost his job at Eddie Stobart probably too....

Eddie Stobart Logistics said in a statement: “We can confirm that we are aware of the reprehensible remarks made by Richard Gear Evans on social media.
"These remarks in no way reflect the view of Eddie Stobart Logistics and we have taken immediate action."

Employers don't want to be associated with extremists of any flavour.

[anonymous-user]

A lot of extremists muslims and far right are on the dole,

i thought i would post this, it was after nice attack but relevant to this. there is a increase in religious hate crimes not just muslims.

[Moonhawk]

Jockman said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-40347813

They've arrested the son of the van hire firm. I think I've entered the twilight zone.

Is he Welsh though......we need to know the answer!

[BlackLabel]

Jockman said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-40347813

They've arrested the son of the van hire firm. I think I've entered the twilight zone.

A stupid and vile remark to make and it's no wonder he's been sacked. Mixed feelings over whether it should be a criminal offence though. Unless you are actually threatening someone or encouraging violence should a comment like this, as disgusting as it was, really be a criminal offence?

[Dindoit]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Zod said:

Alpinestars said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

I'll say it again, as the later information emerging about the attacker only confirms it.

This attack has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, terrorism, or the influence of the far right.

This was a bloke on the edge, mentally ill, heavy drinking, life spiraling out of control, no idea what he was doing other than wanting to die (he goaded the bystanders to kill him). It seems to have come to a head when he was thrown out a pub. For whatever reason that was the last straw. He was ranting and focused his anger on Muslims, but it could have easily been rival football fans or women or any other random segment of society.

Sounds like you had some inside information?

I think he's projecting.

No it's called empathy Zod, not something you'd know about.

Also seems he was ejected from his house and living in a tent.

Textbook

[Alpinestars]

ash73 said:

Melanie Philips had some very interesting things to say about this on the Sky newspaper review tonight.

She's cut from the NP&E stereotype cloth.

[Alpinestars]

Nothingtoseehere said:

Maybe that's more to do with moderating bias? Just look at the Trump thread...
Maybe BMW is on holiday?
How the hell Eddie,Jjlynn etc get away with it endlessly is telling, not worth bothering with np&e for quite a few of us.

If it ain't Mr I hate double standards.

Where's your outrage at this terrorist act? Or dare I say you are the Mr double standards.

[Jockman]

ash73 said:

Melanie Philips had some very interesting things to say about this on the Sky newspaper review tonight.

Her Times column was of interest too yesterday, though it didn't go in to too much depth.

She is certainly one of the more right wing columnists.

[Jockman]

Alpinestars said:

Jockman said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-40347813

They've arrested the son of the van hire firm. I think I've entered the twilight zone.

Stupid remark to make.

Indeed, hence the twilight zone. Bizarre that someone thinks it appropriate.

[Jockman]

BlackLabel said:

Jockman said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-40347813

They've arrested the son of the van hire firm. I think I've entered the twilight zone.

A stupid and vile remark to make and it's no wonder he's been sacked. Mixed feelings over whether it should be a criminal offence though. Unless you are actually threatening someone or encouraging violence should a comment like this, as disgusting as it was, really be a criminal offence?

I suppose the litmus test is whether or not he has broken a law.

[Countdown]

Jockman said:

Alpinestars said:

Jockman said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-40347813

They've arrested the son of the van hire firm. I think I've entered the twilight zone.

Stupid remark to make.

Indeed, hence the twilight zone. Bizarre that someone thinks it appropriate.

Those comments are becoming very common on the Internet. It's sad unfortunately, I thought those attitudes had died out in the late 70's / early 80's but they seem to be becoming more and more acceptable.

[p1stonhead]

Countdown said:

Jockman said:

Alpinestars said:

Jockman said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-40347813

They've arrested the son of the van hire firm. I think I've entered the twilight zone.

Stupid remark to make.

Indeed, hence the twilight zone. Bizarre that someone thinks it appropriate.

Those comments are becoming very common on the Internet. It's sad unfortunately, I thought those attitudes had died out in the late 70's / early 80's but they seem to be becoming more and more acceptable.

Or they never died out its just now you can shout it on facebook and 1 billion people hear it rather than the 7 people down your local.

[XCP]

I would have thought the main reason that the police have called this a terrorist incident is because that gives them more time to question the suspect and make enquiries. An obvious tactic.
Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to substantiate a terror charge remains to be seen.

[Alpinestars]

Jockman said:

BlackLabel said:

Jockman said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-40347813

They've arrested the son of the van hire firm. I think I've entered the twilight zone.

A stupid and vile remark to make and it's no wonder he's been sacked. Mixed feelings over whether it should be a criminal offence though. Unless you are actually threatening someone or encouraging violence should a comment like this, as disgusting as it was, really be a criminal offence?

I suppose the litmus test is whether or not he has broken a law.

Whilst the comments are distasteful and most employers with any brand/ethics/values are likely to view it seriously, I'm not sure how I feel about prosecution. The comments are certainly unwelcome.

The law requires messages to be grossly offensive, and a high bar has been set as to what that means, by Case Law.

"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003]."

However, context is very important. For example, where reference is made to a recent tragic event (as is the case here),
it may sometimes result in reducing the otherwise high threshold.

[Digga]

Alpinestars said:

Whilst the comments are distasteful and most employers with any brand/ethics/values are likely to view it seriously, I'm not sure how I feel about prosecution. The comments are certainly unwelcome.

The law requires messages to be grossly offensive, and a high bar has been set as to what that means, by Case Law.

"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003]."

However, context is very important. For example, where reference is made to a recent tragic event (as is the case here),
it may sometimes result in reducing the otherwise high threshold.

If they guys had said "it's a good job we/they don't hire our road rollers or tanks" it might, possibly, be construed as close-to-the-knuckle humour, but putting it as he did, it almost sounds like he was disappointed that the attack was not more severe.

It's a shame really and I don't think it will go any way to helping the issue whether or not he's prosecuted and, arguably, it may stoke the fires even more if he is.

[CanningTown]

Countdown said:

Those comments are becoming very common on the Internet. It's sad unfortunately, I thought those attitudes had died out in the late 70's / early 80's but they seem to be becoming more and more acceptable.

Why do you think that is?

[Alpinestars]

Digga said:

Alpinestars said:

Whilst the comments are distasteful and most employers with any brand/ethics/values are likely to view it seriously, I'm not sure how I feel about prosecution. The comments are certainly unwelcome.

The law requires messages to be grossly offensive, and a high bar has been set as to what that means, by Case Law.

"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003]."

However, context is very important. For example, where reference is made to a recent tragic event (as is the case here),
it may sometimes result in reducing the otherwise high threshold.

If they guys had said "it's a good job we/they don't hire our road rollers or tanks" it might, possibly, be construed as close-to-the-knuckle humour, but putting it as he did, it almost sounds like he was disappointed that the attack was not more severe.

It's a shame really and I don't think it will go any way to helping the issue whether or not he's prosecuted and, arguably, it may stoke the fires even more if he is.

Agreed. Unfortunately, people seem to think they can say what they want over the Internet and it will provide them anonymity and immunity. In life, I never come across people like some on PH as an example, and that's probably because we all maintain a certain dignity and decorum face to face, and unfortunately the veil of the www seems to provide cover for otherwise latent feelings.

[LocoCoco]

Alpinestars said:

Digga said:

Alpinestars said:

Whilst the comments are distasteful and most employers with any brand/ethics/values are likely to view it seriously, I'm not sure how I feel about prosecution. The comments are certainly unwelcome.

The law requires messages to be grossly offensive, and a high bar has been set as to what that means, by Case Law.

"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003]."

However, context is very important. For example, where reference is made to a recent tragic event (as is the case here),
it may sometimes result in reducing the otherwise high threshold.

If they guys had said "it's a good job we/they don't hire our road rollers or tanks" it might, possibly, be construed as close-to-the-knuckle humour, but putting it as he did, it almost sounds like he was disappointed that the attack was not more severe.

It's a shame really and I don't think it will go any way to helping the issue whether or not he's prosecuted and, arguably, it may stoke the fires even more if he is.

Agreed. Unfortunately, people seem to think they can say what they want over the Internet and it will provide them anonymity and immunity. In life, I never come across people like some on PH as an example, and that's probably because we all maintain a certain dignity and decorum face to face, and unfortunately the veil of the www seems to provide cover for otherwise latent feelings.

There's a big difference between making posts under a forum pseudonym and making the same posts under your real name.

There's people on this forum who put their identity in their profile and people who don't. The people who volunteer their identity should be more careful about the things they post and the people they wind up.