Not that I'm generally in favour of hanging but would happily hang this fucker.but that's a bit of a weird post.As an aside, when we had hanging we did not hang juveniles. (At least not since the early 19th century.)
So if we still had hanging, this guy would not be hanged as he was 17 when he did it. He would have been put in prison for X years, but would eventually have got out. Which is how it is now.
Sadly, both this one and the right wing protesters that are going to prison will likely just mix with kindered spirits in prison (for their own safety) and emerge even further radicalised.
That pic is freaky, he looks completely dead inside, like one of the tethered from ‘Us’.This will probably happen.
I discussed this with my wife who is a psycotherapist specialising in trauma work. We spoke at length, but the first thing she said was that he looks absolutely insane. In no way does this undermine what he did, nor why he did it, but unless you incarcerate children the moment they display a hint of violent tendency, these sporadic events will happen. They are, I contend, more likely to happen without proper investment in schools, social care, youth services and mental health services. We have to address that, but it will still never rule out every one of these situations.
I think you're right, but also, the availability of graphic and radicalising content and communities which never used to be the case is likely to have been an issue here, and more generally.They are, I contend, more likely to happen without proper investment in schools, social care, youth services and mental health services. We have to address that, but it will still never rule out every one of these situations.
Because it would prejudice the trial-the principle of a right to a fair trial is enshrined in our law-and so it should be.Why wasn’t his past history brought up before? It’s like Shipman all over again in which his strike-off for self-perscribing drugs was swept under the carpet.
The “lack of funding” excuse I knew would be played.
No, but possibly other non-terrorists with islamist sympathies and a penchant for al Qaeda training manuals and making ricin.I don’t think he’ll be mixing with too many people that also killed multiple children, to be fair…
People can be sectioned for losing the plot so maybe there was a missed opportunity.Say we agree he's a terrorist, what practical difference does it make?
He's a fruitloop, either way. The question is, how do you control random fruitloops? There seems to be no claim that he's insane, in a legal sense. If that's right, he could not have been sectioned, as you can't section people judged to be sane.
In my book, he's as mad as a hatter, but I'm neither a medical nor legal professional, so my opinion is as nothing.
You can't preemptively lock up people for being weird, or half of us would be in Strangeways. And only his being locked up would have forestalled this tragedy.
Interesting that it now appears to be classed as a terrorist incident by some. The PM Starmer referred to it as such today. He also said that the agencies were clearly wrong to not deemed it terrorist. Is he now washing his hands of this cock up I wonder?I would think that the discovery of Ricin at his home, quite apart from the terror manual, seems incompatible with the repeated assurances that the police provided stating that there was nothing to suggest any terror link in the attack.
At the very least I would think that the Ricin issue would have led to an active investigation of a terror link, even if a terror link was not the main line of inquiry.
He pleaded guilty to a terrorist offence, and Starmer is of the opinion that the law should be changed so that future murders of this sort would be classed as terrorist. No idea what such a definition would be.Interesting that it now appears to be classed as a terrorist incident by some. The PM Starmer referred to it as such today.
No, but possibly other non-terrorists with islamist sympathies and a penchant for al Qaeda training manuals and making ricin.
He pleaded guilty to a terrorist offence, and Starmer is of the opinion that the law should be changed so that future murders of this sort would be classed as terrorist. No idea what such a definition would be.
And your take on the PM saying Prevent were wrong in not determining him a terrorist risk before the attack is?He pleaded guilty to a terrorist offence, and Starmer is of the opinion that the law should be changed so that future murders of this sort would be classed as terrorist. No idea what such a definition would be.
The PM disagrees with this.It's not terrorism under the law.
There was no use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, the use or threat being made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. [Terrorism Act 2000, s.1]
The PM disagrees with this.
So do you. It doesn’t change the current law though.The PM disagrees with this.
He had terrorist manual, made ricin, was referred to the terrorist prevention organisation ‘prevent’ and he killed three girls at a primary school. How was he not classed as a terrorist earlier?
Initially I found starmers speech annoying, but I have to admit he is 109% correct really regarding the legal process and my initial thoughts were admittedly more a reflection of my own opinion of Starmer.I disagree with Starmer about this. I get the optics of why he’s doing it though.