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

Alan Harper's Tash said:
It’s been explained numerous times. Either some can’t or won’t listen.

It’s gone round in circles for hours and won’t reach a conclusion, because facts don’t matter, only narratives.

Thursday will give the summing up and we’ll know even more. Until then, this whole thread seems futile.
Click to expand...
Sorry I disagree, it hasn't been explained.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Sorry I disagree, it hasn't been explained.
Click to expand...
dronefromsector7G said:
Speaking to The i Paper, Jonathan Hall, KC, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, said of the Rudakubana case: “The question is not whether he has been convicted of a terrorism offence, he obviously has.

“But the question is whether the murder and attempted murder was motivated by terrorism.

“The approach of the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] appears to have been that there’s not enough evidence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the reason he carried out the murder and the attempted murders was to pursue an ideological cause.

“I can’t speak for the CPS, but my interpretation is that the ricin was not used and the al-Qaeda manual was not used for the attack.”
Click to expand...
 
dronefromsector7G said:
Speaking to The i Paper, Jonathan Hall, KC, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, said of the Rudakubana case: “The question is not whether he has been convicted of a terrorism offence, he obviously has.

“But the question is whether the murder and attempted murder was motivated by terrorism.

“The approach of the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] appears to have been that there’s not enough evidence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the reason he carried out the murder and the attempted murders was to pursue an ideological cause.

“I can’t speak for the CPS, but my interpretation is that the ricin was not used and the al-Qaeda manual was not used for the attack.”
Click to expand...
Well the CPS needs to be asked, why their approach to this crime was very different to every other lone wolf terrorist attack in recent years. They certainly didn't hesitate immediately declaring other attacks terrorist.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Well the CPS needs to be asked, why their approach to this crime was very different to every other lone wolf terrorist attack in recent years. They certainly didn't hesitate immediately declaring other attacks terrorist.
Click to expand...
it wouldn't have involved the cps at that point-purely the police investigating
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Explain why every other lone wolf attacks were declared terrorist attacks 24 hrs after the event and this one wasn't?
Click to expand...

Not sure which ones you are referring to but it will
be through the available evidence at the time. This one still isn’t considered a terrorist attack by the police or the cps.

From Starmers speech earlier, it sounds like he wants to change the law so that this one would be considered terrorism in the future too. Personally I’m not sure that’s the right idea but I get it given the unnecessary rhetoric that’s been used since.
 
blueinsa said:
Nothing good will come of this thread as usual. The authorities are shitting their pants over what may or may not come out over the course of this trial.

I just hope they send this **** down for as long as they possibly can.
Click to expand...

That may not happen because he's not been tried with aggravating terrorism offences because the authorities told us from Day One they wasn't even gonna consider it as one. Yet Stephen Parkinson and the thought police were on Twitter threatening people for 'prejudicing' the trial.
 
dronefromsector7G said:
Speaking to The i Paper, Jonathan Hall, KC, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, said of the Rudakubana case: “The question is not whether he has been convicted of a terrorism offence, he obviously has.

“But the question is whether the murder and attempted murder was motivated by terrorism.

“The approach of the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] appears to have been that there’s not enough evidence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the reason he carried out the murder and the attempted murders was to pursue an ideological cause.

“I can’t speak for the CPS, but my interpretation is that the ricin was not used and the al-Qaeda manual was not used for the attack.”
Click to expand...
When you strip it down like that, it really isn't difficult to grasp but some are finding it impossible to grasp.

He may well have been motivated by terrorism but he may well have been motivated by Hitler, seeing as though he'd researched him as well. Whatever his motivation, it doesn't diminish the true horror of what he did.
 
M18CTID said:
When you strip it down like that, it really isn't difficult to grasp but some are finding it impossible to grasp.

He may well have been motivated by terrorism but he may well have been motivated by Hitler, seeing as though he'd researched him as well. Whatever his motivation, it doesn't diminish the true horror of what he did.
Click to expand...

It's possible but do you not think he deserves to have the charge put to him in a court of law? He did plead guilty to another terrorism offence after all.

The victim's families have been shat on by the police, CPS and state again, on top of the trauma they've already been through.
 
KDB Fan said:
That may not happen because he's not been tried with aggravating terrorism offences because the authorities told us from Day One they wasn't even gonna consider it as one. Yet Stephen Parkinson and the thought police were on Twitter threatening people for 'prejudicing' the trial.
Click to expand...

Again, that’s factually untrue. His actions already fit the criteria for a whole life order regardless. The reason he won’t get it is due to his age at the time.
 
meltonblue said:
Him not getting a whole life order has nothing to do with it not being considered a terror related attack. It also wouldn’t have changed the sentence anyway given the severity of what he did.
Click to expand...

I know the point that you're making but a more serious sentence, as a result of being convicted for terrorism offences, could effectively be a whole life order as opposed to a lesser sentence for murder.

Either way, the charge deserves to be put to him and he can tell us whether he's guilty or not rather than some clown from the press office at Merseyside Police.
 
KDB Fan said:
It's possible but do you not think he deserves to have the charge put to him in a court of law? He did plead guilty to another terrorism offence after all.

The victim's families have been shat on by the police, CPS and state again, on top of the trauma they've already been through.
Click to expand...
he pleaded gulity to an offence of possessing material-it does not require the same mens rea as murdering children.
 
KDB Fan said:
I know the point that you're making but a more serious sentence, as a result of being convicted for terrorism offences, could effectively be a whole life order as opposed to a lesser sentence for murder.

Either way, the charge deserves to be put to him and he can tell us whether he's guilty or not rather than some clown from the press office at Merseyside Police.
Click to expand...

It couldn’t though as his actions already fit the criteria for whole life murder regardless.

There needs to be sufficient evidence to charge him with it and the only thing that really changes by doing so is determining his motivation. From what the police have said, there was evidence of a multitude of evidence not fitting to any one political or religious ideology. It’s safe to also assume any witnesses did not give any evidence that would support it either.

I’d actually argue a far more likely cover up would be to say he was entirely influenced and acting as if a member of a terrorist organisation or for promoting their means. That makes it far easier for the authorities to deal with.
 
bert38 said:
he pleaded gulity to an offence of possessing material-it does not require the same mens rea as murdering children.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that but simple question for you: do you not think the charge should have at least been put to him in a court of law?

Especially seen as though he was in possession of an Al Qaeda manual, a stash of ricin, and had been referred to a counter-terrorism programme on 3 separate occassions.
 
BrianW said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think in this case there are two issues (at least two), in my view at least.

On the issue of some nutjob’s actions being declared a terrorist incident or not, and whether it makes a meaningful difference, I would tend to agree with you. That is if it genuinely is a case of an individual acting alone, and nobody else being involved in the radicalisation process or encouraging an offence.

Realistically the state won’t be able to stop these attacks. Prevent receives close to 7,000 referrals a year and so mistakes will inevitably be made, even if a review finds that the animal involved in the Southport case should in fact have been locked up earlier.

The other related issue however is that the wider public will only accept that these attacks are genuine one-offs, and extremely difficult to stop, if they believe that information of broader terror-related elements within these cases is not being withheld by the state. Starmer did his best to dispel this issue in his word salad today but he failed to do so - the public were misled last year - and that’s why he’s in trouble with this.
 
KDB Fan said:
I don't dispute that but simple question for you: do you not think the charge should have at least been put to him in a court of law?

Especially seen as though he was in possession of an Al Qaeda manual, a stash of ricin, and had been referred to a counter-terrorism programme on 3 separate occassions.
Click to expand...
No-because the cps deemed there was insufficient evidence to charge him with that and I trust them.

Now, you could argue that the law needs changing-as Starmer said himself-but that is a different matter.
 
Brewster's millions said:
I think in this case there are two issues (at least two), in my view at least.

On the issue of some nutjob’s actions being declared a terrorist incident or not, and whether it makes a meaningful difference, I would tend to agree with you. That is if it genuinely is a case of an individual acting alone, and nobody else being involved in the radicalisation process or encouraging an offence.

Realistically the state won’t be able to stop these attacks. Prevent receives close to 7,000 referrals a year and so mistakes will inevitably be made, even if a review finds that the animal involved in the Southport case should in fact have been locked up earlier.

The other related issue however is that the wider public will only accept that these attacks are genuine one-offs, and extremely difficult to stop, if they believe that information of broader terror-related elements within these cases is not being withheld by the state. Starmer did his best to dispel this issue in his word salad today but he failed to do so - the public were misled last year - and that’s why he’s in trouble with this.
Click to expand...
Starmer knows the law.

Are you trying to say the thugs wouldve stayed at home had they known the 'whole' truth? No. Probably been even worse.
 
meltonblue said:
It couldn’t though as his actions already fit the criteria for whole life murder regardless.

There needs to be sufficient evidence to charge him with it and the only thing that really changes by doing so is determining his motivation. From what the police have said, there was evidence of a multitude of evidence not fitting to any one political or religious ideology. It’s safe to also assume any witnesses did not give any evidence that would support it either.

I’d actually argue a far more likely cover up would be to say he was entirely influenced and acting as if a member of a terrorist organisation or for promoting their means. That makes it far easier for the authorities to deal with.
Click to expand...

1. A terrorism motivation is an aggravating factor that a judge will look at when sentencing. It's a factor that needs to be considered whether or not murder is serious enough for a whole life order in itself.

2. Yep it helps determine motivation too which is another good reason to put the charge to him. From the dawn of any justice system, motivation is something that matters (especially to the families of a victim) and while you or the Merseyside Police press office (within 24 hours) may not find the evidence compelling, I'd argue a ricin stash and an Al Qaeda manual is very strong evidence of a terrorist motivation along with all the other people who previously reported him to a counter-terrorism programme.

Do you not think the charge should have at least been put to him in a court of law?
 
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