Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Terrorist Attack in Streatham 02.02.20
Comments
-
Sadly, he also got what he wanted. It's a shame we have to kill them to remove the risk. Personally I'd like to see them shot to incapacitate them, in a way that means they experience acute pain (such as that they subject their victims to). After conviction, they can then be banged up for life (meaning life) in solitary confinement. To hell (deliberately ironic) with human rights.bobmunro said:Chizz said:
The point I was making (which I should have made clearer in my earlier post) was that there is a significant amount of nuance around the word "considered".bobmunro said:Chizz said:
So if someone, for example, posted on a public site that he'd like to have someone shot in the face, he should go to prison for the rest of his life?bobmunro said:Chizz said:
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.ME14addick said:
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.Chizz said:
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.ME14addick said:
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.Chizz said:
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.ME14addick said:
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.Chizz said:
Can you expand on that?ME14addick said:
Law needs changing.Chizz said:
Under what law @ME14addick ?ME14addick said:Police time shouldn't be spent on following people who are considered a danger to the public. Lock them up and throw away the key.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?Too f*cking right.Anyone considered a danger to the public should be removed from the society to which they present a danger. Call it prison if you like.Straw man.If someone attempted (or indeed succeeded) in shooting someone in the face and it was deemed he would still present a risk to society then YES.
Who does the considering? On what criteria?
You could argue that someone threatening to shoot someone in the face poses a threat and therefore (under such a policy) should be imprisoned for life. (I disagree, for what it's worth).
Or you could argue that someone committing a violent crime (in the way you describe) should be detained while they continue to pose a threat. (I would agree).
However - and here's how it pertains to the situations this month and in November - I think the first example is too onerous and the second would not have made a difference in these cases. They didn't commit violent crimes before being imprisoned; but did so later. And therefore wouldn't meet the criterion you set out.
If someone is a risk to the public, then they should not be free. But permanent, unending, extra-judicial detainment can't be on the basis that someone like you or I consider that they might be a threat.
Bad cases make bad law. It's important that there's a carefully thought out, sustainable and legal means to help prevent incidents like yesterday and in November.With yesterday's incident it was clear that on release he continued to pose a risk, hence he was under surveillance. It would have been easy to monitor his activity if you were looking through iron bars.Still, he got what he deserved - one less evil scum stealing decent peoples' oxygen.3 -
I think when people are around you have to shoot to instantly kill. If they are wearing a working suicide vest, the worst thing you can probably do is try to incapacitate them. And there is no way of knowing if the vest is working or not or indeed if the person is wearing one or not so shoot to kill is essential.3
-
Latest report i read was that none of the victims are in a critical condition. Fingers crossed for them all.8
-
Just said on the radio that 20 policemen were involved with monitoring this individual. How many other scumbags are the resources being allocated to observe. People who bang about their rights and support their punitive sentences should be locked up with them....1
-
Who are these people? The punitive sentences seem to me to be the result of Governments trying to save money rather than pressure from any people!2
-
Doesn’t it cost around £40k per year to keep a person in prison? I can’t see around the clock surveillance being cheaper than that per month let alone per year.MuttleyCAFC said:Who are these people? The punitive sentences seem to me to be the result of Governments trying to save money rather than pressure from any people!1 -
Interesting thread.I think your question has a flaw in using the phrase in general - not that it's an unfair thing to try and do, moreso that Saudi Arabia will be very different to Malaysia, or even Bahrain is different to Kuwait. I think that in trying to view religion through this sort of overview will lead to "but in Saudi Arabia, X happens" with the potential for the unsaid half a sentence to be "so that's how I perceive Islam when used as a basis for law/societal norms".
I fully concur, Paddy, and I have some experience of your emboldened points.
During, in between, and after the gulf wars, I served, with the RAF, in various countries in the Middle-East. Whilst I spent some time in Iraq (Basra), the majority of my 'tours' were in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Oman, in support of the allied 'effort' and its aftermath.
Whilst I'm not interested in getting into the politics of whether or not the wars were legitimate (I was in the military, I quite simply did as I was told), the role that I undertook gave me experience of what Paddy is alluding to.
During my time in Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman, I led the 'force protection' effort. In essence, ensuring the safety of RAF personnel, particularly when they were able to have 'down time' in shopping malls, hotels, gyms etc in these countries. This involved a lot of open source and low level intelligence gathering, which naturally required me to find, develop and cultivate 'contacts' within said areas. The intelligence was then shared with the relevant bodies so we could then, as a collective, make an informed decision as to the level of risk involved in letting our personnel frequent such locations and establishments.
By virtue of such a role, and for the purposes of gaining the confidence of, and building rapport with my contacts, I took it upon myself to read and learn about Islam. I knew that by doing this, I'd attain a much greater understanding of the mindset of those who I was befriending (if you like).
I quickly learnt that Islam and the Quran were massively powerful and influential in the lives of those who followed the faith. On one occasion, and after I knew I'd won his trust, I asked one of the guys I was 'working' with; "why do you make sure that you pray 5 times a day"? His answer was simple, but very powerful; "because if I don't, I am scared of what will happen to me when I die"! This was in Kuwait, a Sunni Muslim majority country.
And yet, in Oman, the 'sect' of Islam that is predominant in that wonderful country is called 'Ibadism' (https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/12/18/who-are-the-ibadis). It's older than the Sunni and Shia sects, but is quite a lot more moderate. That is reflected in the country and is arguably one of the (many) reasons why Oman is such a fantastic place to visit for westerners.
I currently work in Saudi Arabia (Riyadh) and have been here for nearly 2 and a half years. I predominantly work with (train) young Saudi guys (19-20 years old). Again, as part of that rapport building process, I talk to them about their faith, values and beliefs, and how Islam impacts on their lives. Yes, I need to remain respectful and ensure that I say nothing that could potentially offend them or their religion and prophet, but we always have an insightful and interesting discussion. Now, these young lads are no different to any young lad, anywhere in the world. They like a laugh, they like a bit of banter, they love football (I'm really pushing the Charlton thing, but to blank faces!) and they are really quite broad minded. One thing that always resonates, is how sad they are about the attacks carried out by 'extremists' in the name of Islam, and how such attacks taint the views of some non-Muslims about all Muslims. (Some of these guys have visited London, for example, and experienced Islamophobia and racism). It saddens them to think that a lot of people's views and opinions about Islam are based on awful news stories.
I was last in Saudi in 1996. I got here for the second time in Oct 2017. The changes and (what we would call) progression in the country are remarkable. For example, you no longer see 'matawa' (religious police) on the streets, ushering people into prayers 5 times a day (if they miss a prayer time, they simply 'catch up' at some point during the day). In fact, even in the last 2 years the transformation has been quite something. You now have sporting events here of course; cinemas re-opened 2 years ago; western music acts perform 'gigs' after big sporting events, etc; you can now get a tourist visa to visit; women can rightly drive and travel without permission of a 'male'; separate dining areas for 'singles' and 'families' are being removed.
The population is very young here, with a high percentage under the age of 35. People in the country are embracing such changes. However, their religion, values and beliefs are unshakeable and will always underpin their lifestyle. What we may deem as strange or bizarre behaviour, they are also of the same opinion about people going out on a Friday and Saturday, getting drunk, and then wanting to scrap with all and sundry! They simply can't get their heads around that. Swings and roundabouts I guess. In essence though, the vast majority of 'them' are really good people.31 -
It is budgets - you save from one and pay more from another.ValleyGary said:
Doesn’t it cost around £40k per year to keep a person in prison? I can’t see around the clock surveillance being cheaper than that per month let alone per year.MuttleyCAFC said:Who are these people? The punitive sentences seem to me to be the result of Governments trying to save money rather than pressure from any people!0 -
Interesting stuff there from @PaddyP17
I think the "which Muslims do you mean?" question is crucial. The problems mainly seem to lie with fundamentalist Sunni Muslims inspired by the teachings of Saudi preachers. So most of the Jihadists are either from Saudi or Pakistan (where preachers trained by the Saudis operate) or are angry disaffected young men living in the west who often don't have a very clear background on the religion themselves but find these ideas and take them up. The Madrid bombers were not "good Muslims" - they all had girlfriends and drank alcohol. The shoe bomber wasn't from a Muslim background.
I used to work in an office where there was one Muslim - a Somali guy who was the Muslim equivalent of a "born again Christian". He'd been a bit of a bad boy in his youth and thought that coming to Islam (as he'd not been raised in it) was what sorted him out. He may well have been right; he was a complex but likeable fellow, hard-working but would come out with loads of what I thought was b***ocks about things like women's or gay rights. He was what most of us took for mainstream Islam, until another guy started who was a British Pakistani and completely tore him apart on his understanding of what Islam meant. And even the first guy thought that there was a lot wrong with Saudi after he visited.
Where I am now, I sit next to a really funny guy who happens to be a Muslim. Apart from the not drinking and going to Mosque some Fridays, you wouldn't know and he doesn't go anywhere near the sort of stereotypes people have thanks to the media: not only does he like music and is comfortable in most company, he even plays in a band.
I guess the point here is - it's fine to be scared of Jihadists but tarring all Muslims with the same brush helps no one apart from the Jihadists. They can turn to ordinary Muslims and say "see they hate you anyway, join us".
14 -
It’s incomprehensible that in the 21st century, millions of people still live their lives in line with religious fairy tales (be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc)
15 - Sponsored links:
-
The Streatham terrorist. Sudesh Amman, was known to still hold the views that got him incarcerated - which is why he was under armed surveillance. From listening to someone who is involved in deradicalization, he admitted that a lot of the prisoners do not engage but merely sit there saying nothing.
On the basis of that, surely we should have indeterminate sentences but with minimum terms i.e. for someone preaching hatred and violence to those that do not believe, there should be a minimum term of say 10 years - but no release until such time as all experts are satisfied that the individual has denounced the views previously expressed.
There will, undoubtedly, still be mistakes made but a lot less than now and with realistically punitive sentences there might just be less of an inclination to incite and carry out such violence in the name of such false beliefs. And we would not be wasting resource and money having to monitor prisoners that have been released but re-direct that to tackling other crimes.2 -
it depends on the ideology .. love and peace and free wifi for all is good .. kill or enslave all the others not like us is VERY bad .. Just take for example some on here 'hate' Millwall and Palace fans or think anyone born north of Watford is a norvern monkey. Banter or suppressed hatred ?DaveMehmet said:It’s incomprehensible that in the 21st century, millions of people still live their lives in line with religious fairy tales (be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc)
Whether they REALLY mean it or not is irrelevant, it's a microcosm of worldwide tribal and political affiliations which can escalate out of control. And this for something as essentially inconsequential as sport
0 -
If someone were to hurt with intent to kill, abuse or kill my partner, my child or any family member of mine, I'd like to believe they'd be put to death or be murdered in prison pretty quickly.Leuth said:Talk of execution is ironic as the aim of the guy was to be executed.
Worst case is they die at my hands.
I don't want a radicalised terrorist, abuser or a murderer sitting in a cell radicalising others or enjoying their achievement whilst our taxes go towards giving them a comfortable bed and three square meals a day.
They should lose their human rights as soon as they commit such inhumane acts.2 -
No it's REALLY quite relevant. Humans are tribal, doesn't mean we're incapable of living happily with those that believe differently to us. Historically tribes worked together to provide for one another and to provide security for one another.Lincsaddick said:
it depends on the ideology .. love and peace and free wifi for all is good .. kill or enslave all the others not like us is VERY bad .. Just take for example some on here 'hate' Millwall and Palace fans or think anyone born north of Watford is a norvern monkey. Banter or suppressed hatred ?DaveMehmet said:It’s incomprehensible that in the 21st century, millions of people still live their lives in line with religious fairy tales (be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc)
Whether they REALLY mean it or not is irrelevant, it's a microcosm of worldwide tribal and political affiliations which can escalate out of control. And this for something as essentially inconsequential as sport
The Millwall fans on here or the Palace fans, and especially the Palace fans I grew up with in Surrey and call friends, I wouldn't wish any harm on them for their tribal support of their side. Everything negative we say to one another is simply banter for most... Otherwise we'd be in pathetic groups called "firms"...
I also wouldn't wish harm on an Atheist, Christian, Jew or Muslim etc. Being agnostic rather than atheist probably makes that easier.
The only people I would wish harm on are those that wish to carry out inhumane attacks on other innocent humans, simply because of their beliefs. I'd also wish harm on anyone that would similarly harm any of my close friends or family.
0 -
Sorry to say it but a lot of bloody good that did.ME14addick said:
Apparently he was under police surveillance.EveshamAddick said:
Surely they were following him because he was acting suspiciously.ME14addick said:
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.Chizz said:
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.ME14addick said:
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.Chizz said:
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.ME14addick said:
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.Chizz said:
Can you expand on that?ME14addick said:
Law needs changing.Chizz said:
Under what law @ME14addick ?ME14addick said:Police time shouldn't be spent on following people who are considered a danger to the public. Lock them up and throw away the key.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
What if he had a gun or a ‘real’ bomb.........he could have killed dozens!1 -
The thing is, he didn't have a knife. He stole that just before stabbing people.1
-
If you've not seen the videos of armed police arriving left, right and centre... Have a look on twitter. Within moments of him starting his attack there are plain clothes police everywhere around him.SoundAsa£ said:
Sorry to say it but a lot of bloody good that did.ME14addick said:
Apparently he was under police surveillance.EveshamAddick said:
Surely they were following him because he was acting suspiciously.ME14addick said:
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.Chizz said:
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.ME14addick said:
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.Chizz said:
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.ME14addick said:
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.Chizz said:
Can you expand on that?ME14addick said:
Law needs changing.Chizz said:
Under what law @ME14addick ?ME14addick said:Police time shouldn't be spent on following people who are considered a danger to the public. Lock them up and throw away the key.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
What if he had a gun or a ‘real’ bomb.........he could have killed dozens!
At least that's the impression the video gave.0 -
True, that was impressive......however, my point is that he still managed to savagely assault 3 victims and had he have been armed in a different fashion he could have done far more harm.Dazzler21 said:
If you've not seen the videos of armed police arriving left, right and centre... Have a look on twitter. Within moments of him starting his attack there are plain clothes police everywhere around him.SoundAsa£ said:
Sorry to say it but a lot of bloody good that did.ME14addick said:
Apparently he was under police surveillance.EveshamAddick said:
Surely they were following him because he was acting suspiciously.ME14addick said:
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.Chizz said:
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.ME14addick said:
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.Chizz said:
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.ME14addick said:
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.Chizz said:
Can you expand on that?ME14addick said:
Law needs changing.Chizz said:
Under what law @ME14addick ?ME14addick said:Police time shouldn't be spent on following people who are considered a danger to the public. Lock them up and throw away the key.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
What if he had a gun or a ‘real’ bomb.........he could have killed dozens!
At least that's the impression the video gave.
These vermin shouldn’t be walking the streets in the first place.
Very fortunate indeed that there were no fatalities.2 -
I know that........but he did have a fake bomb!MuttleyCAFC said:The thing is, he didn't have a knife. He stole that just before stabbing people.0 -
you have not understood my comment or it needs expanding .. Whether they REALLY mean it or not is irrelevant, it's a microcosm of worldwide tribal and political affiliations which can escalate out of control ..Dazzler21 said:
No it's REALLY quite relevant. Humans are tribal, doesn't mean we're incapable of living happily with those that believe differently to us. Historically tribes worked together to provide for one another and to provide security for one another.Lincsaddick said:
it depends on the ideology .. love and peace and free wifi for all is good .. kill or enslave all the others not like us is VERY bad .. Just take for example some on here 'hate' Millwall and Palace fans or think anyone born north of Watford is a norvern monkey. Banter or suppressed hatred ?DaveMehmet said:It’s incomprehensible that in the 21st century, millions of people still live their lives in line with religious fairy tales (be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc)
Whether they REALLY mean it or not is irrelevant, it's a microcosm of worldwide tribal and political affiliations which can escalate out of control. And this for something as essentially inconsequential as sport
The Millwall fans on here or the Palace fans, and especially the Palace fans I grew up with in Surrey and call friends, I wouldn't wish any harm on them for their tribal support of their side. Everything negative we say to one another is simply banter for most... Otherwise we'd be in pathetic groups called "firms"...
I also wouldn't wish harm on an Atheist, Christian, Jew or Muslim etc. Being agnostic rather than atheist probably makes that easier.
The only people I would wish harm on are those that wish to carry out inhumane attacks on other innocent humans, simply because of their beliefs. I'd also wish harm on anyone that would similarly harm any of my close friends or family.
that is from little acorns, mighty oak trees grow .. given the right circumstances, e.g the 'legal right' for Germans in the 1930s or Englishmen in the 16c to slander, persecute and eventually to murder Jews or Catholics .. The Germans and English in question didn't really hate jews or catholics until it became 'legally and morally acceptable to do so' and the murderous herd/tribal instincts overruled logic and compassion .. does that make more sense ? ..
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Certainly makes more sense when put that way.Lincsaddick said:
you have not understood my comment or it needs expanding .. Whether they REALLY mean it or not is irrelevant, it's a microcosm of worldwide tribal and political affiliations which can escalate out of control ..Dazzler21 said:
No it's REALLY quite relevant. Humans are tribal, doesn't mean we're incapable of living happily with those that believe differently to us. Historically tribes worked together to provide for one another and to provide security for one another.Lincsaddick said:
it depends on the ideology .. love and peace and free wifi for all is good .. kill or enslave all the others not like us is VERY bad .. Just take for example some on here 'hate' Millwall and Palace fans or think anyone born north of Watford is a norvern monkey. Banter or suppressed hatred ?DaveMehmet said:It’s incomprehensible that in the 21st century, millions of people still live their lives in line with religious fairy tales (be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc)
Whether they REALLY mean it or not is irrelevant, it's a microcosm of worldwide tribal and political affiliations which can escalate out of control. And this for something as essentially inconsequential as sport
The Millwall fans on here or the Palace fans, and especially the Palace fans I grew up with in Surrey and call friends, I wouldn't wish any harm on them for their tribal support of their side. Everything negative we say to one another is simply banter for most... Otherwise we'd be in pathetic groups called "firms"...
I also wouldn't wish harm on an Atheist, Christian, Jew or Muslim etc. Being agnostic rather than atheist probably makes that easier.
The only people I would wish harm on are those that wish to carry out inhumane attacks on other innocent humans, simply because of their beliefs. I'd also wish harm on anyone that would similarly harm any of my close friends or family.
that is from little acorns, mighty oak trees grow .. given the right circumstances, e.g the 'legal right' for Germans in the 1930s or Englishmen in the 16c to slander, persecute and eventually to murder Jews or Catholics .. The Germans and English in question didn't really hate jews or catholics until it became 'legally and morally acceptable to do so' and the murderous herd/tribal instincts overruled logic and compassion .. does that make more sense ? ..1 -
thanksDazzler21 said:
Certainly makes more sense when put that way.Lincsaddick said:
you have not understood my comment or it needs expanding .. Whether they REALLY mean it or not is irrelevant, it's a microcosm of worldwide tribal and political affiliations which can escalate out of control ..Dazzler21 said:
No it's REALLY quite relevant. Humans are tribal, doesn't mean we're incapable of living happily with those that believe differently to us. Historically tribes worked together to provide for one another and to provide security for one another.Lincsaddick said:
it depends on the ideology .. love and peace and free wifi for all is good .. kill or enslave all the others not like us is VERY bad .. Just take for example some on here 'hate' Millwall and Palace fans or think anyone born north of Watford is a norvern monkey. Banter or suppressed hatred ?DaveMehmet said:It’s incomprehensible that in the 21st century, millions of people still live their lives in line with religious fairy tales (be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc)
Whether they REALLY mean it or not is irrelevant, it's a microcosm of worldwide tribal and political affiliations which can escalate out of control. And this for something as essentially inconsequential as sport
The Millwall fans on here or the Palace fans, and especially the Palace fans I grew up with in Surrey and call friends, I wouldn't wish any harm on them for their tribal support of their side. Everything negative we say to one another is simply banter for most... Otherwise we'd be in pathetic groups called "firms"...
I also wouldn't wish harm on an Atheist, Christian, Jew or Muslim etc. Being agnostic rather than atheist probably makes that easier.
The only people I would wish harm on are those that wish to carry out inhumane attacks on other innocent humans, simply because of their beliefs. I'd also wish harm on anyone that would similarly harm any of my close friends or family.
that is from little acorns, mighty oak trees grow .. given the right circumstances, e.g the 'legal right' for Germans in the 1930s or Englishmen in the 16c to slander, persecute and eventually to murder Jews or Catholics .. The Germans and English in question didn't really hate jews or catholics until it became 'legally and morally acceptable to do so' and the murderous herd/tribal instincts overruled logic and compassion .. does that make more sense ? ..
1 -
It's clear you haven't "read through" properly or with diligence, so, to help out, @Covered End , here are some of the things I have posted on this thread. I would be happy to explain any of them if you would like me to. And, as this is a forum for debate, would be happy to hear which ones you take issue with.Covered End said:Just had a read through.
Chizz supporting terrorists over the poor people who were stabbed.
Well to be fair he hasn't done it since the last atrocity.- (In response to the news that @cantersaddick was within the cordoned-off area) I said "Stay safe Canters"
- (In response to @ME14addick (rightly) suggesting there are laws that should be changed) I said "I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on. What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?"
- "The horrible crime that took place yesterday was the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law"
- "I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed"
- (In response to @ValleyGary suggesting that "any terror related offences should be given life with a view of parole once they are deemed no danger to the public. That could mean 5, 10, 50 years, whatever it takes to keep us safe") I said "There's a very, very strong case for that... as a starting point, it seems to tick three important boxes: it would act as a deterrent; it's within the rule of law; and it would (probably) have public support".
- (In response to @bobmunro developing a theme that a perpetrator of a violent act of terrorism should be jailed for life) I said "I... agree".
Now, if you think this can be regarded as "supporting terrorists over the poor people who were stabbed" you're wrong and I would be interested to know how you can reach that conclusion.
You're perfectly entitled to disagree with anything I - or anyone else - posts, here or elsewhere. But accusing someone of supporting terrorists is not on. So, I will invite you to reconsider whether it's appropriate to suggest I "support terrorists" and to tell me which of those six points you think I have no right to express. Over to you.10 -
You cite me so I will respond.Chizz said:
It's clear you haven't "read through" properly or with diligence, so, to help out, here are some of the things I have posted on this thread. I would be happy to explain any of them if you would like me to. And, as this is a forum for debate, would be happy to hear which ones you take issue with.Covered End said:Just had a read through.
Chizz supporting terrorists over the poor people who were stabbed.
Well to be fair he hasn't done it since the last atrocity.- (In response to the news that @cantersaddick was within the cordoned-off area) I said "Stay safe Canters"
- (In response to @ME14addick (rightly) suggesting there are laws that should be changed) I said "I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on. What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?"
- "The horrible crime that took place yesterday was the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law"
- "I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed"
- (In response to @ValleyGary suggesting that "any terror related offences should be given life with a view of parole once they are deemed no danger to the public. That could mean 5, 10, 50 years, whatever it takes to keep us safe") I said "There's a very, very strong case for that... as a starting point, it seems to tick three important boxes: it would act as a deterrent; it's within the rule of law; and it would (probably) have public support".
- (In response to @bobmunro developing a theme that a perpetrator of a violent act of terrorism should be jailed for life) I said "I... agree".
Now, if you think this can be regarded as "supporting terrorists over the poor people who were stabbed" you're wrong and I would be interested to know how you can reach that conclusion.
You're perfectly entitled to disagree with anything I - or anyone else - posts, here or elsewhere. But accusing someone of supporting terrorists is not on. So, I will invite you to reconsider whether it's appropriate to suggest I "support terrorists" and to tell me which of those six points you think I have no right to express. Over to you.
For the record, we may disagree on some elements but I would certainly not consider you to be even remotely a terrorist apologist.7 -
Here is a reported picture of the terrorist as a youngster .. so VERY sad
0 -
Is that a lighter in his hand.Lincsaddick said:Here is a reported picture of the terrorist as a youngster .. so VERY sad4 -
already showing signs of aggression, probably towards the west2
-
Every evil bastard was a baby once
9 -
Hi @Covered End just wondering if you have had a chance to reflect on the post I sent as a reply to you. To repeat, accusing someone of supporting terrorists is not on. So, I will invite you to reconsider whether it's appropriate to suggest I "support terrorists" and to tell me which of the six points I highlighted you think I have no right to express. Over to you.0
