Southport attacker pleads guilty to murdering three girls | Sentenced to 52 years in prison

halfmist said:
We just see the world differently. Someone who admits to terrorism offences in my book is a terrorist. Quite simple really despite any political or ideological aims as you put it
Click to expand...
And if he denied being a terrorist would you accept that he wasn't one?
 
oldius said:
And if he denied being a terrorist would you accept that he wasn't one?
Click to expand...

No, because what he did terrorised those he killed, wounded and others who saw it. Their was no doubt of his guilt, and his aim was to terrorise. He is a terrorist whatever he or anyone says contrary.
 
MCFCTrick said:
No, because what he did terrorised those he killed, wounded and others who saw it. Their was no doubt of his guilt, and his aim was to terrorise. He is a terrorist whatever he or anyone says contrary.
Click to expand...

That's a coherent and understandable viewpoint. I agree with your premise.

However, that's not the legal definition of terrorism though.

See below, also not the legal definition of terrorism.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Columbine High School massacre - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
dronefromsector7G said:
He has to be wumming at this point.
Click to expand...
Ah go to no 2! Some of you are so predictable. For someone who dislikes labels it is a bit ironic. However I suppose being labelled a wummer is better than being called a racist so I should be grateful for small mercies.
 
MCFCTrick said:
No, because what he did terrorised those he killed, wounded and others who saw it. Their was no doubt of his guilt, and his aim was to terrorise. He is a terrorist whatever he or anyone says contrary.
Click to expand...
But that isn't what the law says-no matter how much you want it to be.

Starmer correctly raised the issue of whether the law needs to be amended-to cater for lone wolf, online radicalised people intent on violence irrespective of their ideology..

Under your definition any murder would pretty much be classed as terroism, as would buglaries where the occupant was present or most robberies where weapons were used or violence-
 
MCFCTrick said:
No, because what he did terrorised those he killed, wounded and others who saw it. There was no doubt of his guilt, and his aim was to terrorise. He is a terrorist whatever he or anyone says contrary.
Click to expand...
I think you may be wasting your time. They are pre programmed not to use the word against anyone on ideological… oh and as someone said political grounds.
 
halfmist said:
We just see the world differently. Someone who admits to terrorism offences in my book is a terrorist. Quite simple really despite any political or ideological aims as you put it
Click to expand...
you can argue that-he admitted offences under s58 TACT-which means simple possession of items used to prepare/commit acts of terroism-they are offences of mere possession-and it is for the defendant to have a reasonable excuse for possession (eg, university researcher).

but the murders require a different proof-that he was motivated by one of the reasons already listed.
 
Last edited:
bert38 said:
you can argue that-he admitted offences under s58 TACT-which means simple possession of items used to prepare/commit acts of terrosim-they are offences of mere possession-and it is for the defendant to have a reasonable excuse for possession (eg, university researcher).

but the murders require a different proof-that he was motivated by one of the reasons already listed.
Click to expand...
Little wonder we are in the state we are in. I assume your stance is to protect his human rights.
 
halfmist said:
I would let the evidence speak for itself and what I have heard of it …he fits the description of a terrorist
Click to expand...

"Fits the description of a terrorist" is fine for you to call him a terrorist. Nobody objects. Describe away.

However, the murders he committed do not fit the legal definition of a terrorist offence. So they are not terrorist offences in law.

This was simple on page one of the thread, and it's still simple on page 25. It will remain simple for as long as you choose to ramble on. Your opinion is completely irrelevant in law.
 
halfmist said:
I think you may be wasting your time. They are pre programmed not to use the word against anyone on ideological… oh and as someone said political grounds.
Click to expand...
I don't know who you are arguing with here, you're certainly not engaging anyone on this thread in good faith.

All of us accept that Islamic terrorism is a thing, and has been an underlying ideology in a number prominent brutal murders and attacks in the UK and the world. I'm (we're) happy to attribute that when it's the cause, and helps us understand why and how something happened.

What we are saying is from the information we have available in the public domain in this particular case he wasn't a Muslim, wasn't engaged with Islamism, didn't have any sympathies with Islamic beliefs or values, and didn't commit these crimes to further Islamic causes. (Nor, for what it's worth, far right or left beliefs, Irish independence, anarchism, animal rights etc etc etc). He's not left a manifesto, not been in contact with associated terrorist groups, not made any political or religious statements before, during or after. He apparently has one document that could be linked with Isis, but that document was one of many that spanned a whole cache of engagement with violent and extreme materials.

Surely you can understand that point?
 
roubaixtuesday said:
Getting increasingly surreal on here.
Click to expand...
indeed-he also said 'from the evidence I have heard'.

Now, in case I've missed it-what evidence is available to the public? v little.

Do we know what he said in police interview? He may have gone 'no comment'-which would then suppose without witness evidence or any other evidence that its v hard to identify his motives.

Didn't the Jo Cox killer shout 'Britain first' before shooting her?
 
Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:
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?
Click to expand...
Nobody seems interested in why he targeted little girls at a Taylor Swift event. Another fact brushed aside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top