White van man deliberately runs over Muslims.

The Terrorism Act 2000 does not require the motive to be political. Section 1(c) requires thar the use or threat [of violence] is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

I guess the question is whether he has a "cause".

 

After the last attack, someone sent Cifriana one of those hate videos which showed a skinhead man filming himself walking along holding his portable telephone and ranting about Muslims and how they have to root out the evil in their community and how every Muslim should be considered guilty until proven innocent and deport 'em all and all the regular hate stuff.

I would invite white readers to consider how they would feel after this latest attack at Finsbury Park if there were demands to root out the evil in the white community and that all white people should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

I realise the skinhead man was a prize *******, but I thought it a good moment to contemplate why he's such a helmet.

 

Can people please stop with this false comparison. Being white isn't an ideology, it doesn't come with a book telling you how to live.

 

you never read 'eat love pray'?!??

 

I'm still on Bridget Jones's Diary

 

Lone, right wing nutcase radicalised online. Not a terrorist just a victim of society himself.

 

We now have Yahoo pouring scorn on people that think it wasn't a terrorist act.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/40-britis...y-park-mosque-attack-terrorism-132415436.html

Terrorism as defined by Dictionary.com
"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

It was a heinous violent and tragic attack born out of revenge and and the chap's persona circumstances. Terrorism? I'm not so sure. Did the attack create terror, most definitely.

 

I just hope the Muslim community doesn’t use this incident to stigmatise all white van drivers – the majority of whom are tolerant and peace loving and do not believe that homosexuals should be thrown from the roofs of tall buildings

 

As has already even pointed out several times the legal definition is somewhat wider than the dictionary one.

 

dictionary definitions are the theresa may of making a point. uninspired and robotic.

 

So that's the debate done with then what shall we talk about now?

 

As a white Caucasian agnostic with a beard and a pale blue Ford Focus rather than a white van I'm struggling with a line-to-take here ...

 

I'm reading 50 Shades but struggling to find a sentence worthy of a semi let alone full blown w@nk

 

Great (slightly tongue in cheek) quetion on James o'Brien this morning:

"What can poor white communities do to prevent the radicalisation of people like Darren Osborne? Why aren't community leaders standing up and making it clear that this is not what it means to be British?"

 

The sentence was always going to be in the 40yr region once it was dealt with as a terrorism offence. That's about the going rate.

If anyone wants to see the judge's not overly long sentencing remarks, here they are:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/r-v-osborne-sentencing-remarks.pdf

Explains the crime, the law and the sentence pretty well.

 

This is the kind of non-logic I've come to appreciate on LBC.

Deserved sentence IMO

 

Thoughts and prayers will innocent white van drivers, who will no doubt be fearing a backlash because of the actions of this mentally ill lone wolf who does not represent them

Terrorism has no commercial vehicle

 

That is an easy question to answer.

The white community must be 100% totally united in the condemnation of this idiot - without looking for "reasons" to mitigate his guilt.

Which is different from other terrorist attacks whereby (for example) a born and bred Brummie can count on all sorts of excuses ranging from colonisation in the 18th century, western action thousands of miles away, Guantanamo Bay, to the disaffection of youth and just about anything you can think of.

So far, unless I have missed something, the white community O'Brien was asking about, has acted pretty well.

 

But it hasn't, has it? It has been pretty much silent, in the same way as Muslim 'leaders' are accused of being silent.
I've even heard a few 'eye for an eye' merchants on phone ins in the wake of Finsbury park.

The point being there is no 'white working class' spokesman to speak up in the same way as there is no unifying Muslim leader who can speak for all Muslims (except for the council of Muslim leaders who always condemn terrorism).
In fact if you want a group who claims to speak on behalf of white working class it's probably the EDL.

 

Well I admit, that I have not listened to every phone in since Finsbury Park. But at least no one has tried to excuse his terrorism on this forum, which is a refreshing change from what normally happens on here.

...and according to this Guardian article, non muslim religious leaders did condemn the attacks.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...k-attack-muslim-council-jewish-sikh-christian

I would have thought that the lack of credible "leaders" of the white community is a good thing. Do we want that sort of racial division? I don't.

 

Again, the point is it is ridiculous banging on about a perceived lack of condemnation from the Muslim community.

 

Trying to draw a equivalency between an ideology (Islam) and a race of people (white people) is ridiculous

'White people' don't all adhere to a common, core set of beliefs outlined in a holy book. The idea of both groups therefore having an equivalent responsibility to condemn their fellow group members is farcical

If Darren Osbourne has killed in the name of Scientology, everyone would expect the UK Scientology community to condemn and denounce his actions. You can't compare a racial group that people are born into and ideology that people choose to follow

 

No one here excuses terrorism, probably with the exception of your excuses for the US use of napalm, depleted uranium and it’s funding for terrorist groups from Central America to the Middle East as ‘having a go’.

People certainly try to understand ‘why’.