A good friend's son has just converted to Islam. He's marrying his rather fruity girlfriend and the young lady's father insisted. It was very easy apparently. All done online - he hasn't had to grow a beard or set foot in a mosque. Unlike c of e that makes would be new recruits jump through hoops
People were put in prison for spreading alleged 'misinformation'. We were told by the establishment that this wasn't a terrorist incident, only for a few months later to be proved that it was in fact a terrorist incident! Misinformation that turned out to be the correct information! Will these people be released from prison? It's too late for Peter Lynch, he took his own life in prison. Those that burned a hotel, attacked mosques.....well they deserve to be inside. That's just moronic behaviour. I hope we can all agree on that! Ultimately, if this information was known at the time and suppressed by Labour and kept from public consumption to steer their own narrative, then Starmer has a lot of questions to answer! His time in charge has gone horribly from day one!! Totally inept in every sense of the word. 'Time to put the grown-ups back in charge'......yeah, right!
Where are you reading this? The police have said they're still not treating it as terrorism as they haven't established a motive. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/te...ing-terror-charge-prosecutors-say-2024-10-29/
Were they? Not this woman: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crl8nwx6ynzo Nor was Farage. Someone was charged in Pakistan, admittedly: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/pakistani-southport-rotherham-pakistan-muslim-b1177699.html Willing to be corrected though.
Converted to Islam, downloaded Jihadi terrorist manual and was caught with a bio-weapon in his home. His motive was he didn't like Taylor Swift. FML.
Not sure what the relevance of a guy who pled guilty to violent disorder has to do with people being put away for spreading "misinformation". In fact, I'd challenge anyone to produce an example of someone who was actually imprisoned on that basis, because I don't think that happened.
Only due to insufficient evidence. Why arrest and hold for 36 hours for a social media post for 'misinformation'? People have been sentenced for social media posts about the riots which has stemmed from the public being LIED to about the Southport attacker. They're the cold hard facts. All of this was avoidable, but unfortunately your hero PM opted to label concerned patriots as 'far right thugs'. The worst PM in history! Imagine having an approval rating of -38 or whatever it is now after a few months in charge........
So Peter Lynch was justified in violent disorder against asylum seekers and the Police because the Southport assailant was a British Muslim convert? How does that work? And "the adults" have not changed any legislation or sentencing guidelines relating to inciting violence or violent disorder. If you are unhappy with what happened in the summer then you should look at previous government legislation not the current one.
Given you've posted one single anonymous example and we have no info to go on, who knows? Specifically, who has been sentenced? You're claiming these are "cold hard facts", so exactly where are they reported?
Wait, are you saying that the UK judicial system is not a political process directed by the PM, but in fact independent and NOT controlled by the sitting government? Well, that's awkward...
Putting riots and imprisonments to one side, I may be behind the times on this one but when and how did this information come to light? And more importantly when was it first known and by whom? If the senior members of Government, police and media went to great lengths to play down a terrorist link when they knew full well there was one, then that seems very Soviet to me, and something to be alarmed about. May be co-incidence but the clarification has come to light on Budget Day.
Absolutely agree. The whole thing was bungled by the authorities in an attempt to protect the identity of the accused. Obviously, inorder to insure a fair trial, keeping information about suspects out of the public domain is desirable but this leaves a vacuum in modern, social media dominated, society that is filled by speculation. I think the authorities need to reassess their protocols about what information is released and when it is released in future. If people had known earlier that this man was British born and not a refugee would they have still rioted and attacked asylum seeker accommodation? I don't know but I suspect it would have made it less likely. The recent "revelation" that he had converted to Islam and that might have been a motivation behind the attack is irrelevant imho. It just means he is a religious nutter rather than just a nutter. It doesn't justify attacking refugees "in retaliation" unless you are racist.
But remember, his identity legally had to be protected initially because he was 17 at the time he committed the crime. No one other than a judge could remove that restriction and that happened pretty swiftly after he was charged and put before the courts. His age added a significant complication to the equation.
I can indeed imagine it, because Margaret Thatcher had an approval rating of -41. She won two further elections by a landslide.
Yes, very true. Perhaps this is one of the protocols/laws that needs reviewing. I think coming out and saying he was British born, as soon as he was arrested, would not have jeopardised his identity but might have calmed tensions. It shouldn't be necessary, I know, but in these febrile times I think the authorities need to do all they can to blunt the damage that **** stirrers on SM seek to make through misinformation.
I find it dumbfounding that you can say it’s irrelevant if stats show that the majority of knife crime is committed by the black community then we need to understand why that specific category carry a knife and find resolutions within that community rather then just say well it’s youngsters if stats show that the majority of domestic terror crime is committed by the radical islamic community then we need to understand why that specific category carry out terror crimes and find resolutions within that community to stop the indoctrination. Whether that’s deportation of radical clerics or a bigger push within communities to liaise with police BEFORE events happen
It’s irrelevant at the moment because this is not being treated by the police as a terror crime. That might change, of course.
You cut off the rest of that paragraph you quoted. It is irrelevant to the Southport riots, which is the title of this thread, and the context I put your quoted text in with my second sentence in that paragraph. Those attacked in the riots had nothing to do with the suspect or his motivation (whatever that was) for the murders. The only common denominator was the colour of their skin. Of course authorities, from social workers to MI5, should deal with the causes and threat of Islamic terrorism. And the government should provide a legal structure to punish those that are behind it. I like to believe that that is already happening though.
At least one of those was due to the Falklands conflict. Kier will be lining up potential opponents as we speak. I reckon we can probably afford having a go at reclaiming Diego Garcia.
May have missed it but can't see it reported anywhere that he converted to Islam, grateful if someone could provide a link. I know police are sometimes prone to making odd decisions but I'm trying to understand what people that are angry about this think is going on. The police, CPS and government are all involved in a massive cover up to claim that a horrific event wasn't (yet) being classed as terrorist-related when they are sitting on evidence that it was? To what end? It's far easier for them politically and from a reputational angle to call it terrorism if they indeed possess the evidence it was. Isn't it more likely that they're telling the truth and haven't yet established a motive? Given they've managed to find the download of the manual on his computer, presumably they've crawled through the rest of it too, including all his internet search history, as well as talking to all the people that know the offender. For something to be classed as a terrorist event, it's not sufficient that it's terrifying, it has to be linked to advancing a specific cause - religious, political, racial, ideological.
But is that really feasible? We don't have an identity database in the UK. If you don't have a passport there's no easy way to know where someone was born. Of course I'm sure the regional CT police were immediately running various checks beyond my bog standard experience of trying to obtain that sort of information, which in a few years back literally involved filling out paper forms and waiting days or even weeks for a response. But would they be sure enough they had the right person to be able to categorically say he was British born? I've got real doubts. And it would risk fuelling the conspiracy stuff if the police said it - or worse, the PM said it - and they later turned out to be wrong.
Due to the £22bn black hole the invasion for this Parliament will be limited to the Isle of Wight and limited to daytime hours only.
I’m not angry just questioning it, and I think that is fair. I think there is every chance the establishment have a “we know best” attitude and don’t trust Joe Public not to riot as soon as they hear the word “Islam” so go out of their way to misdirect. Given the EDF dolts went nuts anyway when bloke had Christian status might as well just be honest! I concede you might be correct though and it’s just a case of evolving events. I just don’t trust the UK government and police hierarchy on any matter really.
The Isle of Wight is a hole. Does a wight hole and a black hole cancel each other out or does it create a larger grey hole? Are we able to tax grey holes?
No danger of this tool Starmer winning a further two elections. Heck, i'll be gobsmacked if he's still in charge this time next year!!!
