Shootings on London Bridge
Discussion
GloverMart said:
One of the MOP's that got involved was interviewed an hour ago on 5Live. Name of Stevie Hurst, I think, he is a tour guide and was driving on his way to a job in a classic Mini with his mate in another Mini behind.
Well worth a listen to his interview. Clearly, the shock will start to kick in soon, seemed like it was already beginning to sink in that he could have died in the incident. Apparently, he is the guy in a long green coat in the video, kicked the perp in the hand to try to get him to release the knife.
Saw the minis at the scene. Well worth a listen to his interview. Clearly, the shock will start to kick in soon, seemed like it was already beginning to sink in that he could have died in the incident. Apparently, he is the guy in a long green coat in the video, kicked the perp in the hand to try to get him to release the knife.
Someone has some explaining to do. A lot of explaining.
A known, convicted terrorist, out on license, is taken from Staffordshire, to the very scene of one of the worst terrorists incidents in recent years, where his brother terrorists killed and maimed people with knives, and taken to a fish market yards off that scene, for ‘rehabilitation’. You know, fish market, where people have super sharp gutting and filleting knives just lying around.
He didn’t bring those knives with him. They were in the market, and he’s used them to kill people there.
Hence the narwel tusk. Decoration at the fish market. I suspect the guy seen on top of him is a fish monger. Probably just seen friends murdered.
I wonder where the probation officer is....? One of the dead perhaps. .
A known, convicted terrorist, out on license, is taken from Staffordshire, to the very scene of one of the worst terrorists incidents in recent years, where his brother terrorists killed and maimed people with knives, and taken to a fish market yards off that scene, for ‘rehabilitation’. You know, fish market, where people have super sharp gutting and filleting knives just lying around.
He didn’t bring those knives with him. They were in the market, and he’s used them to kill people there.
Hence the narwel tusk. Decoration at the fish market. I suspect the guy seen on top of him is a fish monger. Probably just seen friends murdered.
I wonder where the probation officer is....? One of the dead perhaps. .
Butter Face said:
TTmonkey said:
Someone has some explaining to do. A lot of explaining.
A known, convicted terrorist, out on license, is taken from Staffordshire, to the very scene of one of the worst terrorists incidents in recent years, where his brother terrorists killed and maimed people with knives, and taken to a fish market yards off that scene, for ‘rehabilitation’. You know, fish market, where people have super sharp gutting and filleting knives just lying around.
He didn’t bring those knives with him. They were in the market, and he’s used them to kill people there.
Hence the narwel tusk. Decoration at the fish market. I suspect the guy seen on top of him is a fish monger. Probably just seen friends murdered.
I wonder where the probation officer is....? One of the dead perhaps. .
Er, fishmongers hall isn’t a working fish market. I very much expect he took the knife with him, he did also have a fake bomb belt so it’s not like it was a random attack....A known, convicted terrorist, out on license, is taken from Staffordshire, to the very scene of one of the worst terrorists incidents in recent years, where his brother terrorists killed and maimed people with knives, and taken to a fish market yards off that scene, for ‘rehabilitation’. You know, fish market, where people have super sharp gutting and filleting knives just lying around.
He didn’t bring those knives with him. They were in the market, and he’s used them to kill people there.
Hence the narwel tusk. Decoration at the fish market. I suspect the guy seen on top of him is a fish monger. Probably just seen friends murdered.
I wonder where the probation officer is....? One of the dead perhaps. .
Still, doing the risk assessment I wouldn’t think taking a terrorist to London Bridge is sensible.
Edited by TTmonkey on Saturday 30th November 07:16
janesmith1950 said:
TTmonkey said:
You know, fish market, where people have super sharp gutting and filleting knives just lying around.
He didn’t bring those knives with him. They were in the market, and he’s used them to kill people there.
Hence the narwel tusk. Decoration at the fish market. I suspect the guy seen on top of him is a fish monger. Probably just seen friends murdered.
I'd politely suggest you read up on the location, as I believe you have the wrong end of the tusk on that particular aspect and the conclusions you've jumped to on the back of it.He didn’t bring those knives with him. They were in the market, and he’s used them to kill people there.
Hence the narwel tusk. Decoration at the fish market. I suspect the guy seen on top of him is a fish monger. Probably just seen friends murdered.
janesmith1950 said:
Sadly the politicians can't win.
The prisons are full.
The electorate doesn't like money being spent on prisons, yet they do expect offenders to go to and stay in prison. But they won't accept tax rises or spending compromised on other things to pay for it.
Then things like this happen and it's the politicians' fault.
The prisons may be at capacity but you could perhaps think twice about letting out convicted terrorists earlier than their minimum term...? The prisons are full.
The electorate doesn't like money being spent on prisons, yet they do expect offenders to go to and stay in prison. But they won't accept tax rises or spending compromised on other things to pay for it.
Then things like this happen and it's the politicians' fault.
milkround said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: There's some reporting that some of those who tackled the terrorist and/or helped the victims were ex-offenders (including a convicted murderer) at the same event as the terrorist.
So what? They were not breaking the law but heroically putting themselves in danger to protect others. The police were also remarkably brave. I think smearing the heros is despicable. And I'm not accusing you of that. But the fact its even mentioned is deplorable. They have clearly served their time and were doing good. I'd buy any of them a drink and shake their hands.
On a side note I don't like how we carry a dark mark on people with old convictions. We all break the law. We have maybe fiddled our expenses, or driven to fast or a multitude of things. No one is perfect. But we want to look down on those who happen to have been caught...
Anyway it was Winston Churchill who said borstal boys make the best soldiers. And he seems to have been proven right again here.
It would be a great thing if parolees on a course were involved in taking down the parolee trying to kill people.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Saskia's Family said:
“She had a wonderful sense of mischievous fun and was generous to the point of always wanting to see the best in all people,” they said in a statement. “She was intent on living life to the full and had a wonderful thirst for knowledge, enabling her to be the best she could be.
“Saskia had a great passion for providing invaluable support to victims of criminal injustice, which led her to the point of recently applying for the police graduate recruitment programme, wishing to specialise in victim support.
“This is an extremely painful time for the family. Saskia will leave a huge void in our lives and we would request that our privacy is fully respected.”
“Saskia had a great passion for providing invaluable support to victims of criminal injustice, which led her to the point of recently applying for the police graduate recruitment programme, wishing to specialise in victim support.
“This is an extremely painful time for the family. Saskia will leave a huge void in our lives and we would request that our privacy is fully respected.”
Well if you are hosting a public event where you KNOW a convicted terrorist is on the guest list whilst on parole and within his sentence period, I’d expect a little more security so that he can’t bring weapons and a (fake) bomb into the event and attempt mass murder.... !
Or were people worried that he might have been offended if he (and all the others) were subject to just a little bit more caution?
We aren’t talking about inviting a nelson Mandela figure here.... he is STILL serving a term for terrorism, albeit on probation or whatever.
Was any risk assessment done? Would love to see the forms that were filled in.
And I don’t care what anyone says about it, but I’ll never ever trust a confirmed jihadist.
Or were people worried that he might have been offended if he (and all the others) were subject to just a little bit more caution?
We aren’t talking about inviting a nelson Mandela figure here.... he is STILL serving a term for terrorism, albeit on probation or whatever.
Was any risk assessment done? Would love to see the forms that were filled in.
And I don’t care what anyone says about it, but I’ll never ever trust a confirmed jihadist.
Keoparakolo said:
TTmonkey said:
Well if you are hosting a public event where you KNOW a convicted terrorist is on the guest list whilst on parole and within his sentence period, I’d expect a little more security so that he can’t bring weapons and a (fake) bomb into the event and attempt mass murder.... !
Or were people worried that he might have been offended if he (and all the others) were subject to just a little bit more caution?
We aren’t talking about inviting a nelson Mandela figure here.... he is STILL serving a term for terrorism, albeit on probation or whatever.
Was any risk assessment done? Would love to see the forms that were filled in.
And I don’t care what anyone says about it, but I’ll never ever trust a confirmed jihadist.
Why is the guy who thought about committing an act more of a threat than the guy who actually did it and slit someone’s throat? I’m being serious. Both are clearly a risk but it seems that the one who actually committed a major crime is considered to be OK. Or were people worried that he might have been offended if he (and all the others) were subject to just a little bit more caution?
We aren’t talking about inviting a nelson Mandela figure here.... he is STILL serving a term for terrorism, albeit on probation or whatever.
Was any risk assessment done? Would love to see the forms that were filled in.
And I don’t care what anyone says about it, but I’ll never ever trust a confirmed jihadist.
The hero’s that stopped this were amongst the probationers yes. And we have so much to be grateful to them for. I’m going to suggest that all of them however don’t have a faith based terrorist organisation promising them eternal life in its name though.
Question for the legal people.
If it’s shown that the knife guy had any kind of contact with any of the other people he was convicted with in 2012, be it emails, texts or anything, is that enough to get them recalled to prison?
Are convicted terrorists on parole allowed to consort with other convicted terrorists?
If it’s shown that the knife guy had any kind of contact with any of the other people he was convicted with in 2012, be it emails, texts or anything, is that enough to get them recalled to prison?
Are convicted terrorists on parole allowed to consort with other convicted terrorists?
Cantaloupe said:
TTmonkey said:
Are convicted terrorists on parole allowed to consort with other convicted terrorists?
that 100s of terrorists on parole make or receive ?
All solutions cost money.
But i meant after this event, they will pull apart his life now, if they find evidence that he’s in touch with his other accused and convicted accomplices, will they be recalled to serve their sentences?
Seriously, treating extreme religious jihadists like any other domestic criminal needs to be reconsidered.
Both in sentencing, early release and future monitoring whilst on probation. The term ‘ticking timebomb’ Was never more justified, they can’t be defused.
The motivation that drives these people cannot be underestimated, treated or reversed whilst we (the kafir countries) are still in any way interfering with their way of life, such as bombing Isis. To some of them that even means if we still exist.
We simply don’t comprehend their hatred, their justifications, their belief, their willingness to self sacrifice, their portent for revenge, or their ability to involve any target without fear that their god will punish them. They will never forgive or forget.
It makes me wonder if Jack Merrit died at the hands of a man who he thought he trusted, thought he’d built up a good relationship with, perhaps told his parents about this wonderful, misunderstood poetry writing gentle man of peace. Someone who he thought liked him, respected him.
On Friday everything that these people involved in is programme thought they were achieving with a convicted terrorist/religious jihadist was nullified in a horrendous way. No doubt academics on the scheme are sittingwondering what they've done wrong to cause this reversal of their programme.
Nothing. You can’t cure this level of extremist religious devotion and hatred and belief. It’s never been possible and never will. People use the term ‘brain washing’. But it’s stronger than brain washing. People that are brain washed often are forced into it. That’s not the case here.
If Khan hadn’t of been stopped he’d have killed more. If the hero’s hadn’t have fought back he’d have found more defenceless victims, If he had the means, he’d have used even more deadly force. If he’d had a real bomb he’d have used it.
Yet at 11 am on Friday those people around him thought he was of no threat.
They were wrong. And he wasn’t just triggered by something, it was preplanned.
If Kahn hadn’t of been stopped by those hero’s he’d have found soft targets to kill outside, tourists, students, children, women, old people, or anyone else frozen by fear. It doesn’t matter how much his family or colleagues hate the Daily Mail or the politicians that comment after the events, nothing but violent intervention was going to stop Kahn. The rehabilitation process was a sham. The words are harsh but the facts cannot be argued with whilst the floors are covered in blood.
The one thing that the actions of the hero’s has given us is some false sense of victory. Kahn won on Friday, he achieved what he wanted, but probably wanted to a have even more. His death won’t have a negative affect on like minded jihadists, it will enforce their belief. He won. He’d have preferred to have won bigger, but he still achieved his goals.
Religious jihadist terrorists shouldn’t be on the same rehabilitation course as domestic criminals.
People have asked “what’s the difference between a murderer such as the guy who helped and the religious terrorist capable of killing multiple people just because they have a different religion”?
It’s an inability to differentiate between these mind sets that causes this problem.
People argue that it’s ‘human rights’ to be treated like other criminals. But his like doesn’t deserve human rights to the same level as other criminals. Because of one thing. They have no regard for human rights. None. And never will.
Both in sentencing, early release and future monitoring whilst on probation. The term ‘ticking timebomb’ Was never more justified, they can’t be defused.
The motivation that drives these people cannot be underestimated, treated or reversed whilst we (the kafir countries) are still in any way interfering with their way of life, such as bombing Isis. To some of them that even means if we still exist.
We simply don’t comprehend their hatred, their justifications, their belief, their willingness to self sacrifice, their portent for revenge, or their ability to involve any target without fear that their god will punish them. They will never forgive or forget.
It makes me wonder if Jack Merrit died at the hands of a man who he thought he trusted, thought he’d built up a good relationship with, perhaps told his parents about this wonderful, misunderstood poetry writing gentle man of peace. Someone who he thought liked him, respected him.
On Friday everything that these people involved in is programme thought they were achieving with a convicted terrorist/religious jihadist was nullified in a horrendous way. No doubt academics on the scheme are sittingwondering what they've done wrong to cause this reversal of their programme.
Nothing. You can’t cure this level of extremist religious devotion and hatred and belief. It’s never been possible and never will. People use the term ‘brain washing’. But it’s stronger than brain washing. People that are brain washed often are forced into it. That’s not the case here.
If Khan hadn’t of been stopped he’d have killed more. If the hero’s hadn’t have fought back he’d have found more defenceless victims, If he had the means, he’d have used even more deadly force. If he’d had a real bomb he’d have used it.
Yet at 11 am on Friday those people around him thought he was of no threat.
They were wrong. And he wasn’t just triggered by something, it was preplanned.
If Kahn hadn’t of been stopped by those hero’s he’d have found soft targets to kill outside, tourists, students, children, women, old people, or anyone else frozen by fear. It doesn’t matter how much his family or colleagues hate the Daily Mail or the politicians that comment after the events, nothing but violent intervention was going to stop Kahn. The rehabilitation process was a sham. The words are harsh but the facts cannot be argued with whilst the floors are covered in blood.
The one thing that the actions of the hero’s has given us is some false sense of victory. Kahn won on Friday, he achieved what he wanted, but probably wanted to a have even more. His death won’t have a negative affect on like minded jihadists, it will enforce their belief. He won. He’d have preferred to have won bigger, but he still achieved his goals.
Religious jihadist terrorists shouldn’t be on the same rehabilitation course as domestic criminals.
People have asked “what’s the difference between a murderer such as the guy who helped and the religious terrorist capable of killing multiple people just because they have a different religion”?
It’s an inability to differentiate between these mind sets that causes this problem.
People argue that it’s ‘human rights’ to be treated like other criminals. But his like doesn’t deserve human rights to the same level as other criminals. Because of one thing. They have no regard for human rights. None. And never will.
We should stop calling these people terrorists. The are extremist jihadists. There is no political answer to a holy war.
Terrorists usually have an achievable agenda, they have a goal that can be either, won, delivered upon or negotiated into a politically delivered peace solution.
The extremist jihadist wants the kafirs to not exist in this universe. There is no achievable or negotiable outcome. This is beyond an illness or a political leaning.
We need to expand the legal definition to mark them aside from terrorists. They are not criminals that need to be taught the law. They have no reference and no punishment cures or concerns them.
This is not going away. Two years without an attack on British soil and people start to believe its gone away. But it doesn’t. It just doesn’t.
Terrorists usually have an achievable agenda, they have a goal that can be either, won, delivered upon or negotiated into a politically delivered peace solution.
The extremist jihadist wants the kafirs to not exist in this universe. There is no achievable or negotiable outcome. This is beyond an illness or a political leaning.
We need to expand the legal definition to mark them aside from terrorists. They are not criminals that need to be taught the law. They have no reference and no punishment cures or concerns them.
This is not going away. Two years without an attack on British soil and people start to believe its gone away. But it doesn’t. It just doesn’t.
Edited by TTmonkey on Monday 2nd December 11:28
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff