A Political Thread pt. 2

[BathBod]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl20x1ggpo

Twelve arrested over threat to Islamic event​

Twelve people have been arrested over an alleged right-wing terror threat to an Islamic event at a country estate in Suffolk, police said.
Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP) said the UK Ijtima event at Shrubland Hall at Barham was ended early on Sunday as a precaution after the possible threat.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the response of the police in tackling a "credible threat" to the festival had "undoubtedly saved lives".

ARTICLE CONTINUES...

I think you'll find that the assorted loons and OAPs arrested were called in for demonstrating against the terrorist event being allowed - I'm not sure if the folks from that part of sleepy Suffolk are "right wing"
If you support Sunni terrorists on your doorstep that is your privilege - BUT KSA don't want IJTIMA loons on their streets. I've a feeling the Saudis know more about these people than we do?

Saudi BAN IJTIMA

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I just wish the Police could be left to get on with their work and work on the basis of they’ll say something when there’s something to say. They really shouldn’t be pressured into quick results or giving press updates every 5 minutes.

Not just in the Widdecombe case, but all unless there’s a clear risk to the public.

 

[Tomma235]

I think you'll find that the assorted loons and OAPs arrested were called in for demonstrating against the terrorist event being allowed - I'm not sure if the folks from that part of sleepy Suffolk are "right wing"
If you support Sunni terrorists on your doorstep that is your privilege - BUT KSA don't want IJTIMA loons on their streets. I've a feeling the Saudis know more about these people than we do?

Saudi BAN IJTIMA

Saudi Arabia bans religious group it disagrees with and calls them terrorists shocker. Itjima happens in several countries as a peaceful gathering even India has a large one. It's only our racist loons on the east coast that can't get over their bigotry. What is it about the east coast counties? It's no coincidence that Great Yarmouth and Clacton are both there.

 

[dirty harry]

What's wrong with you?

"A murdered politician is NOT information to suggest a politically motivated crime"

Which part of that do you not understand?

Of course it is, as said before a murdered woman is information to suggest a mysoginistic motivated crime. You might disagree in how strong that information is, but of course its information that suggests it. To state there is none is an absolute that is just ludicrous.

And look, it appears language is becoming hardened, now its a 'targetted attack' and terroristic and politically motivated aspects are being considered, now why do you think the police werent honest about them considering these aspects originally, because we all know they were.?

 

[Saintjay]

R

Of course it is, as said before a murdered woman is information to suggest a mysoginistic motivated crime. You might disagree in how strong that information is, but of course its information that suggests it. To state there is none is an absolute that is just ludicrous.

And look, it appears language is becoming hardened, now its a 'targetted attack' and terroristic and politically motivated aspects are being considered, now why do you think the police werent honest about them considering these aspects originally, because we all know they were.?

One last time.

At the stage of the investigation there was no evidence to suggest a political motive. As it has progressed this has changed.

You build a picture of motive as crime investigation progresses.

Unfortunately halfwits can't understand how major investigation works, how legal disclosure works or what can seriously prejudice a potential trial and jury

 

[Welsh Exile]

R

One last time.

At the stage of the investigation there was no evidence to suggest a political motive. As it has progressed this has changed.

You build a picture of motive as crime investigation progresses.

Unfortunately halfwits can't understand how major investigation works, how legal disclosure works or what can seriously prejudice a potential trial and jury

If Poirot investigated murders like Harry he’d gather everyone around the fireplace five minutes after finding the body and announce, ‘Well, the victim was a woman, so we’ve solved the motive”

 

[dirty harry]

R

One last time.

At the stage of the investigation there was no evidence to suggest a political motive. As it has progressed this has changed.

You build a picture of motive as crime investigation progresses.

Unfortunately halfwits can't understand how major investigation works, how legal disclosure works or what can seriously prejudice a potential trial and jury

Jees are you being willfully obtuse?

When have i questioned the investigation?

My argumentbis with the communication, tobstate unequivically that there is 'no information to suggest' politicql motivation is stupid.

To state, as the police are doing now 'we are exploring all motivations' is a far clearer more transparent statement. One is an absolute, in whoch is stupid because a murdered politician, at very least is a tiny amount of information yo suggest a politically motivated crime, by its very essence.

Again, and i cant believe i have to keep reiterating this, the police is too busy managing the publics response, than just being transparent, to state they dont know yet but are investigating all avenues, which they absolutely were doing from the start, is to state facts, to deny any political or terror motives, is to stop the public from reacting.

It amazes me that the right wing keep guessing the outcome before the police (more often than not) its almost like they recognise patterns in information release, or non release, and this continually bolsters the arguments of 2 tier policing, anti British government behaviours etc and benefits Reform and Restore.

There has been genuine criticism of the police communication methods here, enough for the commisioner to try to defend them. Forbthebrecord communication since being handed over to counter terrorism has been far better.

 

[dirty harry]

If Poirot investigated murders like Harry he’d gather everyone around the fireplace five minutes after finding the body and announce, ‘Well, the victim was a woman, so we’ve solved the motive”

This is silly even for you, i havnt commented on the investigation whatsoever, only the communication from police.

Noone knows the motives yet, but what we do know is one thing, there has always been information to suggest political motivation.

 

[Welsh Exile]

This is silly even for you, i havnt commented on the investigation whatsoever, only the communication from police.

Noone knows the motives yet, but what we do know is one thing, there has always been information to suggest political motivation.

One thing we do know is that we know **** all.

 

[dirty harry]

One thing we do know is that we know **** all.

Exactly, so why play into right wing hands by playing the 'its definately not what you think' game, and just state from the start, like Laurence Taylor has in the last few days, that they are exploring all avenues but it hasnt been deemed a terror or politically motivated crime as of right now.

Instead, every time there is an incident, police trust degrades further, Reform politicans get boosts from the anti establishment rhetoric, and the idea police are anti white British people circulates further.

Im not sure if you look at right wing articles, or even comment sections under generic youtube news outlets etc, but they are filled with more and more radicalised ideals, the term 'millions must go' is everywhere, Restore voters and affiliates are talking mass deportations of 1 to 2 million to start, and the trend of left wingers being evidenced as violent is growing.

Im genuinely concerned things are ramping up faster and faster, and establishment communications arent helping, theyre contributing.

 

[Tomma235]

Exactly, so why play into right wing hands by playing the 'its definately not what you think' game, and just state from the start, like Laurence Taylor has in the last few days, that they are exploring all avenues but it hasnt been deemed a terror or politically motivated crime as of right now.

Instead, every time there is an incident, police trust degrades further, Reform politicans get boosts from the anti establishment rhetoric, and the idea police are anti white British people circulates further.

Im not sure if you look at right wing articles, or even comment sections under generic youtube news outlets etc, but they are filled with more and more radicalised ideals, the term 'millions must go' is everywhere, Restore voters and affiliates are talking mass deportations of 1 to 2 million to start, and the trend of left wingers being evidenced as violent is growing.

Im genuinely concerned things are ramping up faster and faster, and establishment communications arent helping, theyre contributing.

They haven't said "it definitely isn't what you think it is", they have said that at a particular moment in time there was nothing to suggest it was what the right wing wanted it to be. There's a huge difference.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Exactly, so why play into right wing hands by playing the 'its definately not what you think' game, and just state from the start, like Laurence Taylor has in the last few days, that they are exploring all avenues but it hasnt been deemed a terror or politically motivated crime as of right now.

Instead, every time there is an incident, police trust degrades further, Reform politicans get boosts from the anti establishment rhetoric, and the idea police are anti white British people circulates further.

Im not sure if you look at right wing articles, or even comment sections under generic youtube news outlets etc, but they are filled with more and more radicalised ideals, the term 'millions must go' is everywhere, Restore voters and affiliates are talking mass deportations of 1 to 2 million to start, and the trend of left wingers being evidenced as violent is growing.

Im genuinely concerned things are ramping up faster and faster, and establishment communications arent helping, theyre contributing.

When I say we I mean us. The police have the information and information can change as things progress.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Of course it is, as said before a murdered woman is information to suggest a mysoginistic motivated crime. You might disagree in how strong that information is, but of course its information that suggests it. To state there is none is an absolute that is just ludicrous.

And look, it appears language is becoming hardened, now its a 'targetted attack' and terroristic and politically motivated aspects are being considered, now why do you think the police werent honest about them considering these aspects originally, because we all know they were.?

No it isn't. Seriously, take a course on critical thinking.

Again learn the difference between evidence and implication. Google it, the answer is there.

A politician being murdered IMPLIES a political motive but is not evidence of a political motive. These are not the same.

 

[Saintjay]

The police unfortunately have to say something because idiots will speculate it was a Muslim small boat crossing politically motivated misogynist terrorist

Part of the assumption must be correct because it was a female ex-MP and until the police provide evidence to the contrary. It's up to the police to show influencers the evidence it wasn't a Muslim small boat crossing politely motivated misogynist terrorist

It would blow tiny minds that motive doesn't always imply guilt. That's why you have evidence. To assume makes an ass of u and me

 

[Tomma235]

The police unfortunately have to say something because idiots will speculate it was a Muslim small boat crossing politically motivated misogynist terrorist

Part of the assumption must be correct because it was a female ex-MP and until the police provide evidence to the contrary. It's up to the police to show influencers the evidence it wasn't a Muslim small boat crossing politely motivated misogynist terrorist

It would blow tiny minds that motive doesn't always imply guilt. That's why you have evidence. To assume makes an ass of u and me

You have to feel sorry for the right. Their minds are currently blown by the fact the current suspect is white and not a Somalian pirate straight off a dinghy.

 

[Reiser99]

It's up to the police to show influencers the evidence it wasn't a Muslim small boat crossing politely motivated misogynist terrorist.

And yet to add the the absurdity of this, they are trying to prove a negative and the only way is to prove it definitely wasn't is to prove who did do it, which is what they are trying to do anyway.

 

[Tomma235]

Someone has been arrested for tweeting they'd like to shoot Farage. Strangely the free speech warriors are silent.

 

[dirty harry]

Someone has been arrested for tweeting they'd like to shoot Farage. Strangely the free speech warriors are silent.

Theyd like to shoot Farage? Didnt the threat say they would shoot farage in the head if he wins.

Did you minimise the language on purpose?

 

[Tomma235]

Theyd like to shoot Farage? Didnt the threat say they would shoot farage in the head if he wins.

Did you minimise the language on purpose?

Not on purpose no. Still I'm not seeing anyone crying out that free speech is being restricted.

 

[dirty harry]

Not on purpose no. Still I'm not seeing anyone crying out that free speech is being restricted.

Ah ok it was accidental.

Is threatening to shoot someone in the head within the free speach argument though? Thats a pretty direct threat of action, and threat to coerce a politician to not run through fear, even the 2nd amendment wouldnt defend that surely?

Would you deem this free speach?

 

[dirty harry]

No it isn't. Seriously, take a course on critical thinking.

Again learn the difference between evidence and implication. Google it, the answer is there.

A politician being murdered IMPLIES a political motive but is not evidence of a political motive. These are not the same.

Ok lets put your advice to the test...

Evidence on initial finding Ann: a current prominant figire of the right, is found murdered in her home just after making a TV appearance.

Implication: this might be politically motivated, we need to investigate further.

Did i do it right? Or is your stance against mine that this is definately not politically motivated a smarter option, i mean come on, you can be better than arguing for an absolute statement over questioning that there could be political motivation.

 

[Tomma235]

Ah ok it was accidental.

Is threatening to shoot someone in the head within the free speach argument though? Thats a pretty direct threat of action, and threat to coerce a politician to not run through fear, even the 2nd amendment wouldnt defend that surely?

Would you deem this free speach?

Our local free speech martyr said "

• Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f**** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it." and people were up in arms. Given the context that is a pretty direct message and yet the warriors claimed she was only using her free speech.

As to my views on whether it is free speech or not, I believe you either have free speech or you don't. If we want free speech, then yes that is free speech.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Ok lets put your advice to the test...

Evidence on initial finding Ann: a current prominant figire of the right, is found murdered in her home just after making a TV appearance.

Implication: this might be politically motivated, we need to investigate further.

Did i do it right? Or is your stance against mine that this is definately not politically motivated a smarter option, i mean come on, you can be better than arguing for an absolute statement over questioning that there could be political motivation.

Except the police didn't state it definitely wasn't politically motivated did they? They said there was nothing to suggest it was and that they didn't believe it was. Actual words were "Police investigating the alleged murder of Ann Widdecombe have said there is "nothing to suggest it was politically motivated" as they continue to question a man."

You again can't seem to grasp the difference between pointing out a lack of evidence for a motive and denying the motive. Do you advocate the police speculate wildly on the motive at a crime based on nothing more than the victim if they have no other supporting evidence available? Otherwise they would have said there is suggestion it is a racist, sexist, religionist, straightist, misogynist, ageist, shortist, irritating voice-ist murder. Kinda pointless isn't it listing out every detail of the victim as a possible motive for their murder prior to any actual evidence that points in a specific direction.

You also seem to have made a beeline to claiming the police lied (ie knew it was politically motivated from the start) rather than working on evidence as it was uncovered. They've already said the suspect wasn't on their watchlist, unless you want to claim that is also a lie? Therefore didn't have anything to hand to begin with.

Also are you going to apologise for throwing a hissy fit claiming you were being misquoted when you actually said exactly what I said you did?

 

[Tomma235]

Ok lets put your advice to the test...

Evidence on initial finding Ann: a current prominant figire of the right, is found murdered in her home just after making a TV appearance.

Implication: this might be politically motivated, we need to investigate further.

Did i do it right? Or is your stance against mine that this is definately not politically motivated a smarter option, i mean come on, you can be better than arguing for an absolute statement over questioning that there could be political motivation.

Implication: we need to investigate further.

Happy to help

 

[dirty harry]

Our local free speech martyr said "

• Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f**** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it." and people were up in arms. Given the context that is a pretty direct message and yet the warriors claimed she was only using her free speech.

As to my views on whether it is free speech or not, I believe you either have free speech or you don't. If we want free speech, then yes that is free speech.

Are the wordings of these cases the same, did Lucy say she was going to go to a hotel and burn it down?

Its very hard to compare cases on speach, there are little differences between them, but hey, Lucy got 2.5 years didnt she, lets see what this guy gets.

 

[dirty harry]

Implication: we need to investigate further.

Happy to help

Thanks for proving my point lol

 

[Tomma235]

Are the wordings of these cases the same, did Lucy say she was going to go to a hotel and burn it down?

Its very hard to compare cases on speach, there are little differences between them, but hey, Lucy got 2.5 years didnt she, lets see what this guy gets.

That's why context is important, at the time people were rolling flaming bins into the front doors of hotels full of people. Connolly was exhorting them to do more and she pleaded guilty. But this still hasn't answered my question of where are the free speech warriors? This guy was only expressing his opinion.

 

[dirty harry]

Lucy pleaded guilty. But this still hasn't answered my question of where are the free speech warriors? This guy was only expressing his opinion.

He was only expressing an opinion? or threatening political violence in order to effect a political outcome at an election?

Who are these free speach warriors you speak of, drop a name and lets discuss the detail.

 

[Tomma235]

Thanks for proving my point lol

How have I proved your point? The police didn't say it wasn’t politically motivated, they said they had no evidence at that time and were investigating.

 

[Saintjay]

Threats can be criminal depending on the circumstances.

Given Nigel believes he is the most attacked politician etc etc. I'm sure he'll want the book thrown at the guy.