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

[halfmist]

I had the Anarchist's Cookbook when I was a teenager. I'm not a terrorist though.

This **** is just pure evil.

I read the communist manifesto and studied Marxism and I am not a Marxist I don’t think either suggested going killings innocent people so not quite sure of the point you are making

 

[M18CTID]

I do hope more comes out, he seems to have had an objection to little girls dressing up like Taylor Swift, or is that just my simplistic way of looking at it. He must have found out somehow that this event was taking place, I for one don’t think it was a random attack.

I agree that it was almost certainly not random and that it was pre-planned.

 

[halfmist]

Open to correction, but he was charged under the Terrorism Act with an action that might help a terrorist, not with being a terrorist.

It's a fine distinction, but one that has to be made when people are making accusations about a "cover up" pre-trial.

If everything is fine and Dandy I cannot understand why Starmer has pledged to look at the rules and definitions.

 

[ballbag]

I read the communist manifesto and studied Marxism and I am not a Marxist I don’t think either suggested going killings innocent people so not quite sure of the point you are making

Are they considered to be terrorism manuals?

 

[halfmist]

Perhaps i struggle to grasp your ramblings?

The silence I proposed is regarding his police interview under caution-I am suggesting he may have said nothing-in which case without other direct evidence it would be hard to determine his motives for the murders.

Nobody will believe a word he utters so his motives are irrelevant. He could say anything as I am sure some will be taken in by his motives

 

[halfmist]

Are they considered to be terrorism manuals?

That is my point. Did the original poster act on the contents of the book he read, of course not, has it affected how he sees life I would like to think not.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Not seen that reported, but I’m curious as to why he went all the way to an event where small children, mainly girls, were dressing up like Taylor Swift. That’s my whole point, why has it not been reported. He had a motive, that seems obvious to me, I don’t always go off what I read in the MSM.

I've no idea why he chose that event, and I've no idea why anyone would think it was specifically Taylor Swift motivated without evidence. Many other motivations are possible.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

If everything is fine and Dandy I cannot understand why Starmer has pledged to look at the rules and definitions.

Because individuals (usually young men) with no or incoherent politics determined to commit mass murder have been a growing problem around the world for 3 decades, and reframing current terrorism legislation that is currently narrow in its framing and implemented for the world of post-9/11 will open up better funding and support for police, Prevent and intelligence groups to stop this happening in future and to better prosecute these young men (hopefully before they get to the stage this got to).

 

[meltonblue]

If everything is fine and Dandy I cannot understand why Starmer has pledged to look at the rules and definitions.

To expand the scope of the security services.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I must confess when the news first broke on the fact that he had been investigated 3 times and no action had been taken I thought to myself how could this have happened. Having seen your posts it helps explain why. Nothing to see here, case closed, we cannot be accused of calling him a terrorist otherwise people will assume Muslim and we pick up a racist label. Little wonder it keeps happening time and time again

This is a really bizarre post.

All I've done is explain the law, and the law seems very clear that these murders do not fit the legal definition of terrorism.

That's it. Why it upsets you so much is your business.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

If everything is fine and Dandy I cannot understand why Starmer has pledged to look at the rules and definitions.

Obviously, everything is not "fine and Dandy"; 3 girls were murdered.

 

[Vic]

If everything is fine and Dandy I cannot understand why Starmer has pledged to look at the rules and definitions.

If you've now conceded that, under the current legal definition, Southport was not terrorism, then we can move on to whether the definition of terrorism should be broadened, including the current requirement for the act to be in a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

It's perhaps surprising that more of the people "protesting" after the Southport murders weren't charged with terrorism offences, as their actions could be seen as acting more "in a cause" than the murderer (under the existing definition).

 

[ballbag]

That is my point. Did the original poster act on the contents of the book he read, of course not, has it affected how he sees life I would like to think not.

No I didn't, but if I'd have been arrested for shoplifting one day and the police searched my house for the goods and found material like The al-Qaida Training Manual, then I'd be looking at an investigation/charge of an act of terrorism.

I gather that's where the police are at right now with this ****. And they've found no other evidence to indicate that what the twat did was politically/terrorism related.

FWIW, I'd like to see an inch chopped off one of the ****'s digits every day until he has none left, and then move on to an inch off the limbs each day until they're gone too. Forget anesthesia. But not because he's a terrorist, because he's an absolute fucking ****.

 

[halfmist]

No I didn't, but if I'd have been arrested for shoplifting one day and the police searched my house for the goods and found material like The al-Qaida Training Manual, then I'd be looking at an investigation/charge of an act of terrorism.

I gather that's where the police are at right now with this ****. And they've found no other evidence to indicate that what the twat did was politically/terrorism related.

FWIW, I'd like to see an inch chopped off one of the ****'s digits every day until he has none left, and then move on to an inch off the limbs each day until they're gone too. Forget anesthesia. But not because he's a terrorist, because he's an absolute fucking ****.

If a particular book is illegal then yes you would face questioning. If it isn’t it is not unreasonable to ask why you have it. Not sure they would be so sympathetic with possession of bomb making material.

 

[halfmist]

If you've now conceded that, under the current legal definition, Southport was not terrorism, then we can move on to whether the definition of terrorism should be broadened, including the current requirement for the act to be in a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

It's perhaps surprising that more of the people "protesting" after the Southport murders weren't charged with terrorism offences, as their actions could be seen as acting more "in a cause" than the murderer (under the existing definition).

Afraid not. It was terrorism and hopefully the law will be changed to reflect the facts

 

[ballbag]

If a particular book is illegal then yes you would face questioning. If it isn’t it is not unreasonable to ask why you have it. Not sure they would be so sympathetic with possession of bomb making material.

They're not. That's why he has a charge of an act of terrorism. For owning the book.

 

[Jimmieblue]

I've no idea why he chose that event, and I've no idea why anyone would think it was specifically Taylor Swift motivated without evidence. Many other motivations are possible.

Well let’s hope they are able to find one and that it gets reported. This person was a second generation immigrant. His parents fled a country where unspeakable horrors took place. He is not your regular teenager trolling through the internet for violent content. A regular teenager who would have no intention of carrying out such atrocities. All this is relevant and I hope it gets reported.

 

[halfmist]

Obviously, everything is not "fine and Dandy"; 3 girls were murdered.

You see there you go twisting it again. You know full well I was talking about the definition of terrorism.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

He is not your regular teenager trolling through the internet for violent content.

Sure, mass murder is not a regular teenage pursuit. But I don't think we can assume anything either way as to the influence of his family background. Other people without his background have committed appalling atrocities too. We just can't say at the moment, I think.

 

[halfmist]

Because individuals (usually young men) with no or incoherent politics determined to commit mass murder have been a growing problem around the world for 3 decades, and reframing current terrorism legislation that is currently narrow in its framing and implemented for the world of post-9/11 will open up better funding and support for police, Prevent and intelligence groups to stop this happening in future and to better prosecute these young men (hopefully before they get to the stage this got to).

You can throw as much money as you like at a problem. If someone is pure evil or ideologically motivated nothing will change certainly not a course.