| The Southport attack and Starmer 08:58 - Jan 21 with 5329 views | onehunglow |
Are we allowed to offer comments on here Mods
Thanks
Starmers comments of late are surely worth commenting . |  |
| |  |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 20:22 - Jan 24 with 976 views | Gwyn737 |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 19:22 - Jan 24 by Boundy |
Wasn't terrorism, what world do you exactly live in. |
It’s pretty much what the judge said.
It is a broad definition tbf. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 21:47 - Jan 24 with 907 views | SullutaCreturned |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:15 - Jan 24 by Gwyn737 |
An even if it was all true, we need to look at why a small number of idiots see fit try try and burn alive innocent people to show their disgust.
It's good to have the discussion around the issues caused by the vacuum of information following the arrest, but I'm still asking myself what difference would it have made?
The trial wasn't prejudiced, the right person was caught and recieved an almost unprecedented sentence.
I'm afraid that for some part of the anger is he wasn't the illegal, small boat migrant they were so desperate for him to be. [Post edited 24 Jan 16:50]
|
I'm afraid that your last point doesn't matter. He is the son of immigrants and that is good enough for them.
It doesn't matter that there were countless chances to deal with the problem, nobody took control, nobody looked at him and did what clearly should have been done.
What matters to a lot of people is that he is not British born and bred.
What seems to come a distant second to the racist card is that our incompetent governments for the last 40 years or more have been leading us down the garden path and we are regularly seeing the results of their negligence. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 21:55 - Jan 24 with 899 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 19:11 - Jan 24 by AnotherJohn |
Terrorism Act, 2000
1 (1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
F2. Words in s. 1(1)(c) inserted (16.2.2009) by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28), ss. 75(1)(2)(a), 100(5) (with s. 101(2)); S.I. 2009/58, art. 2(a)
____________________
The aspect of the definition that interests me is the addition of the racial dimension in the 2009 amendment. The change in the definition in s75 of the 2008 Act was intended to indicate that acts carried out with a racial motivation did not need to be associated with an ideological or political aim to be considered to be terrorism.
The explanatory note says: “Section 75 gives effect to Lord Carlile’s 12th recommendation in his January 2007 report on the definition of terrorism. This was that the definition of terrorism in section 1(1) of the 2000 Act be amended to include, in paragraph (c), the purpose of advancing a racial cause (in addition to a political, religious or ideological cause). Although a racial cause will in most cases be subsumed within a political or ideological cause this amendment is designed to put the matter beyond doubt that such a cause is included”.
Now, I am not sure this would apply to this case, but I wonder if the racial aspect has been fully investigated. Radakubana appears to have had a grudge against his former school and beyond that against the wider society, possibly because of his past negative experiences. Did his actions reveal antagonism towards white people? |
“… but I wonder if the racial aspect has been fully investigated.”
I’m pretty sure the answer to that would be an overwhelming yes. This is a heinous monstrous crime and the security services, Special Branch and every other man and his dog would have been crawling all over it. On top of that the CPS and then the prosecuting barrister would have reviewed every aspect of the file. If they could gave proved the Terrorism aspect they’d have charged him either it. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 22:11 - Jan 24 with 876 views | AnotherJohn |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 21:55 - Jan 24 by majorraglan |
“… but I wonder if the racial aspect has been fully investigated.”
I’m pretty sure the answer to that would be an overwhelming yes. This is a heinous monstrous crime and the security services, Special Branch and every other man and his dog would have been crawling all over it. On top of that the CPS and then the prosecuting barrister would have reviewed every aspect of the file. If they could gave proved the Terrorism aspect they’d have charged him either it. |
Perhaps, but one senses that it is the possibility that the authorities are most loath to foreground. Even in this thread the tendency is to miss that fourth category from the definition of terrorism in the legislation. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 22:36 - Jan 24 with 861 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 19:22 - Jan 24 by Boundy |
Wasn't terrorism, what world do you exactly live in. |
If you apply the legal definition of Terrorism as per the Terrorist Act, the monstrous attack isn’t a terrorist act regardless of how it’s spun. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 22:41 - Jan 24 with 841 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 22:11 - Jan 24 by AnotherJohn |
Perhaps, but one senses that it is the possibility that the authorities are most loath to foreground. Even in this thread the tendency is to miss that fourth category from the definition of terrorism in the legislation. |
Not sure I follow you.
Below is an extract from the Terrorism Act 2000.
To satisfy/prove that the offence was a terrorist act, the police have to prove a) b) AND c) - unless all 3 are proven it cannot be classified as a terrorist offence. It’s that simple.
This is what the judge alluded to and is the reason it’s not a terrorist offence.
The points to prove are:-
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. [Post edited 24 Jan 23:17]
| | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 23:57 - Jan 24 with 810 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 19:25 - Jan 24 by union_jack |
Maybe, maybe not but it does point to the fact that he was an Islamist in possession of a substance that could do mass harm. It doesn’t really matter though, it’s a semantic argument.
I’ve no doubt that he’d be capable of carrying out an attack deemed to be terrorism though. |
Where is the evidence he is an Islamist? He’s an autistic kid from a Christian family. The police and security services haven’t proved he’s an Islamist. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 01:14 - Jan 25 with 776 views | mangohilljack |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 11:34 - Jan 24 by controversial_jack |
He's a twisted nutter, they exist, not much we can do to stop them |
Yes there is remove his head asap | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 01:41 - Jan 25 with 754 views | mangohilljack |
Wow, this thread is beyond belief. I genuinely cannot understand how anyone could defend this monster or argue that he is entitled to a defence.
The one undeniable fact is that he brutally slaughtered three beautiful young girls who were simply enjoying an event, having fun. That fact alone strips him of any claim to human rights the moment he chose to take their lives.
All the noise and distractions—debates about his background, religion, or other irrelevant factors—are entirely moot. None of it matters.
There is something deeply wrong with our society if people believe this individual deserves a defence. He doesn’t—and neither do his family, who appear complicit in his actions.
Our justice system is fundamentally flawed and urgently needs reform. We need zero tolerance for such vile, murderous acts, regardless of the perpetrator's race, religion, or background. Justice should be swift, uncompromising, and focused solely on protecting the innocent and honouring the victims. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 06:10 - Jan 25 with 731 views | AnotherJohn |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 22:41 - Jan 24 by majorraglan |
Not sure I follow you.
Below is an extract from the Terrorism Act 2000.
To satisfy/prove that the offence was a terrorist act, the police have to prove a) b) AND c) - unless all 3 are proven it cannot be classified as a terrorist offence. It’s that simple.
This is what the judge alluded to and is the reason it’s not a terrorist offence.
The points to prove are:-
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. [Post edited 24 Jan 23:17]
|
Yes, I had set out of the relevant provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and am aware that multiple conditions need to be realised for a terrorist offense to be deemed to have occurred. However, the four categories of terrorist actions that I was referring to (from section 1(1)c) are those that advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. So the scenario I am suggesting involves serious violence (1(1)a as per subsection 2), against a section of the public (1(1)b) to advance a racial cause (1(1)c). You say that the authorities, plus "every man and his dog" , will have fully investigated a possible racial aspect. I say that that is by no means evident to me, especially given that multiple sceptical commentators are arguing that this is the possibility the powers that be are desperate to play down.
Suppose, for instance, that a black person who perceives that his life has been blighted by racism develops a strong dislike to the white society that he blames for this, and decides to seek revenge against "a section of the public" with that racial identity. The serious violence in this case was directed at a general category of persons rather than individuals known to Rudakabana. Wouldn't an attack on a room full of white girls and the preparation of ricin for a possible multiple casualty event be prima facie evidence of antagonism towards that white society? And doesn't that make it necessary to take a hard look at what Rudakabana may have said to various people in his life? Perhaps that has happened, but the focus so far seems to have been on the apparent ideological inconsistency of somebody who looks at both an Al Qaeda manual and school massacres. The 2008 Act makes it clear that a racial motivation may lead to a terrorist offence even if an ideological or political dimension is absent. The judge, as you say, decided that the conditions for a terrorist act had not been met, but he made that judgement on the basis of the evidence before him. I think the inquiry should drill down and gather more evidence that would determine whether there was a racial motive. [Post edited 25 Jan 6:38]
| | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:17 - Jan 25 with 690 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 23:57 - Jan 24 by majorraglan |
Where is the evidence he is an Islamist? He’s an autistic kid from a Christian family. The police and security services haven’t proved he’s an Islamist. |
.notvtalking religion but about his actions
His parents could have prevented this
Don’t make out yiure not defending him | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:18 - Jan 25 with 677 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 01:41 - Jan 25 by mangohilljack |
Wow, this thread is beyond belief. I genuinely cannot understand how anyone could defend this monster or argue that he is entitled to a defence.
The one undeniable fact is that he brutally slaughtered three beautiful young girls who were simply enjoying an event, having fun. That fact alone strips him of any claim to human rights the moment he chose to take their lives.
All the noise and distractions—debates about his background, religion, or other irrelevant factors—are entirely moot. None of it matters.
There is something deeply wrong with our society if people believe this individual deserves a defence. He doesn’t—and neither do his family, who appear complicit in his actions.
Our justice system is fundamentally flawed and urgently needs reform. We need zero tolerance for such vile, murderous acts, regardless of the perpetrator's race, religion, or background. Justice should be swift, uncompromising, and focused solely on protecting the innocent and honouring the victims. |
It’s frightening what goes through peoples heads
Clear evidence he is being defended and some ,like his barrister,looking to mitigation | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 12:04 - Jan 25 with 612 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 23:57 - Jan 24 by majorraglan |
Where is the evidence he is an Islamist? He’s an autistic kid from a Christian family. The police and security services haven’t proved he’s an Islamist. |
Apart from making a biological weapon from the advice printed in an Islamic state terrorism training manual there’s no evidence at all. |  |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 12:31 - Jan 25 with 578 views | Tummer_from_Texas |
Love this from Dorking Wanderers.
[Post edited 25 Jan 13:55]
|  |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 13:06 - Jan 25 with 560 views | Gwyn737 |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 12:31 - Jan 25 by Tummer_from_Texas |
Love this from Dorking Wanderers.
[Post edited 25 Jan 13:55]
|
Why didn’t they do it after the Lucy Letby conviction? | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 14:30 - Jan 25 with 503 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 13:06 - Jan 25 by Gwyn737 |
Why didn’t they do it after the Lucy Letby conviction? |
Well,it’s unsafe ,according to some . | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:45 - Jan 25 with 443 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:17 - Jan 25 by onehunglow |
.notvtalking religion but about his actions
His parents could have prevented this
Don’t make out yiure not defending him |
You may not be talking about religion, but some are - he is not an Islamist.
I’m not defending him. I have pointed out the legislation and the points to prove the offence was a terrorist offence. Unlike many, you’ll understand the importance of the points to prove. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:48 - Jan 25 with 433 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 12:04 - Jan 25 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
Apart from making a biological weapon from the advice printed in an Islamic state terrorism training manual there’s no evidence at all. |
The fact he has an Islamic state manual doesn’t make him an Islamist, you could download a copy of it if you wanted to but that wouldn’t necessarily make you an Islamist? I could download a copy of Mein Kampf, but it wouldn’t make me a nazi. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:14 - Jan 25 with 404 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 06:10 - Jan 25 by AnotherJohn |
Yes, I had set out of the relevant provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and am aware that multiple conditions need to be realised for a terrorist offense to be deemed to have occurred. However, the four categories of terrorist actions that I was referring to (from section 1(1)c) are those that advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. So the scenario I am suggesting involves serious violence (1(1)a as per subsection 2), against a section of the public (1(1)b) to advance a racial cause (1(1)c). You say that the authorities, plus "every man and his dog" , will have fully investigated a possible racial aspect. I say that that is by no means evident to me, especially given that multiple sceptical commentators are arguing that this is the possibility the powers that be are desperate to play down.
Suppose, for instance, that a black person who perceives that his life has been blighted by racism develops a strong dislike to the white society that he blames for this, and decides to seek revenge against "a section of the public" with that racial identity. The serious violence in this case was directed at a general category of persons rather than individuals known to Rudakabana. Wouldn't an attack on a room full of white girls and the preparation of ricin for a possible multiple casualty event be prima facie evidence of antagonism towards that white society? And doesn't that make it necessary to take a hard look at what Rudakabana may have said to various people in his life? Perhaps that has happened, but the focus so far seems to have been on the apparent ideological inconsistency of somebody who looks at both an Al Qaeda manual and school massacres. The 2008 Act makes it clear that a racial motivation may lead to a terrorist offence even if an ideological or political dimension is absent. The judge, as you say, decided that the conditions for a terrorist act had not been met, but he made that judgement on the basis of the evidence before him. I think the inquiry should drill down and gather more evidence that would determine whether there was a racial motive. [Post edited 25 Jan 6:38]
|
In the eyes of the law there is no evidence to support what you’re suggesting. If there was evidence to corroborate that this was a terrorist act it would have been discovered during the course of the investigation or obtained during the course of questioning.
We can speculate all we like, but in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary, according to the Terrorsim Act 2000 it cannot be a classified as terrorist act. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:22 - Jan 25 with 401 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:45 - Jan 25 by majorraglan |
You may not be talking about religion, but some are - he is not an Islamist.
I’m not defending him. I have pointed out the legislation and the points to prove the offence was a terrorist offence. Unlike many, you’ll understand the importance of the points to prove. |
Definitions are made esoteric for a reason.politicians are often legally trained and laws need to be interpreted or need learned judges to define .
Jobs for the boys really
This incident should not have occurred . That it did shows where we are as a society and the reactions of some shock ,like Starmer not believing a whole life would be appropriate
I don’t care whether he was Jewish Muslim or Buddhist | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:34 - Jan 25 with 391 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:22 - Jan 25 by onehunglow |
Definitions are made esoteric for a reason.politicians are often legally trained and laws need to be interpreted or need learned judges to define .
Jobs for the boys really
This incident should not have occurred . That it did shows where we are as a society and the reactions of some shock ,like Starmer not believing a whole life would be appropriate
I don’t care whether he was Jewish Muslim or Buddhist |
I agree with you, it beggars belief something like this can happen in our society, but, sadly it doesn’t surprise me because there are some real sickos out there. Rubakana should spend the rest of his days in prison and never see the light of day again. [Post edited 25 Jan 20:32]
| | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 20:45 - Jan 25 with 348 views | AnotherJohn |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:14 - Jan 25 by majorraglan |
In the eyes of the law there is no evidence to support what you’re suggesting. If there was evidence to corroborate that this was a terrorist act it would have been discovered during the course of the investigation or obtained during the course of questioning.
We can speculate all we like, but in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary, according to the Terrorsim Act 2000 it cannot be a classified as terrorist act. |
If by "in the eyes of the law" you mean in the opinion of the trial judge, then yes. But what I had in mind is the range of motivated behaviour covered by the legislation. My point was that there was a path to an offence under the 2000 Act that does not not involve a political, ideological or religious motive. With the right evidence, a charge could have been made in respect of a racial "cause" under the provision added in 2009. This is an evidential matter concerning motivation, rather than a question of what the Act ("the law") covers. If the motivation discovered falls into any one of the four categories in s1(1)c then terrorism may have been involved. The CPS guidance on charging under the Terrorist Act, 2000 indicates that "cause" (the wording of the Act) can be construed as motivation. I accept that no clear evidence of a racial motivation has been reported in statements from the key stakeholders, but if such evidence had been found then Rudakabana could have been charged under the provisions of the Act. The idea that any evidence discovered about a racial aspect would certainly have been reported seems to me to be too kind to the authorities, whom we know from past cases may prefer to frame events in one way rather than another.. That is why I felt your earlier posts may have framed the range of motivational possibilities too narrowly. Personally, I still believe that Rudakabana may have been motivated by resentment based on his experiences with a majority population that he perceived as racially different from him. It seems to me that it is appropriate for the Inquiry to consider that possibility, irrespective of the charge that led to imprisonment. I still think there is a debate to be had about whether the Southport killings were a form of terrorism. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 22:45 - Jan 25 with 262 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 20:45 - Jan 25 by AnotherJohn |
If by "in the eyes of the law" you mean in the opinion of the trial judge, then yes. But what I had in mind is the range of motivated behaviour covered by the legislation. My point was that there was a path to an offence under the 2000 Act that does not not involve a political, ideological or religious motive. With the right evidence, a charge could have been made in respect of a racial "cause" under the provision added in 2009. This is an evidential matter concerning motivation, rather than a question of what the Act ("the law") covers. If the motivation discovered falls into any one of the four categories in s1(1)c then terrorism may have been involved. The CPS guidance on charging under the Terrorist Act, 2000 indicates that "cause" (the wording of the Act) can be construed as motivation. I accept that no clear evidence of a racial motivation has been reported in statements from the key stakeholders, but if such evidence had been found then Rudakabana could have been charged under the provisions of the Act. The idea that any evidence discovered about a racial aspect would certainly have been reported seems to me to be too kind to the authorities, whom we know from past cases may prefer to frame events in one way rather than another.. That is why I felt your earlier posts may have framed the range of motivational possibilities too narrowly. Personally, I still believe that Rudakabana may have been motivated by resentment based on his experiences with a majority population that he perceived as racially different from him. It seems to me that it is appropriate for the Inquiry to consider that possibility, irrespective of the charge that led to imprisonment. I still think there is a debate to be had about whether the Southport killings were a form of terrorism. |
In the eyes of the law is reference to the judge and to the CPS who would have made the decision about which offences to Charge after reviewing the file.
In this case it’s clear Rudakubana’s actions fall within Section 2, however there is no evidence that the conduct was designed to influence government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public AND that the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
If the police had found evidence, I’m sure it would have been made public. The 3 referrals to Prevent didn’t identify any links with terrorism which is why they didn’t do anything with him apart from refer him on.
There definitely needs to be an enquiry regarding the way this kid was dealt with because to most of us there’d be alarm bells ringing. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 00:57 - Jan 26 with 242 views | Robbie |
Terrorism , or a kid out of control by reading online hatred in his bedroom with nobody watching his actions on his keypad , jeez he got ricin posion online , I am lucky to get a Doctors appointment with my local Primary Care registration procedure .
People will take their anger out on any authority in Power at the time as a backlash reaction to this despicable act .
Starmer maybe not his fault in this case is being made out as the go to devil .
However his past history as a CPS Prosecutor , useless, added to a Human Rights lawyer will lead me to state , it happened on your watch mate , your manifesto pledge on law and order are so far out of reach , in some areas knife crime and mob rule governs .
Sure the process of appeals against this monsters sentence will start soon , legal aid at the taxpayers expense added to the mental health claim will drag through the Courts . | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:27 - Jan 26 with 138 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 00:57 - Jan 26 by Robbie |
Terrorism , or a kid out of control by reading online hatred in his bedroom with nobody watching his actions on his keypad , jeez he got ricin posion online , I am lucky to get a Doctors appointment with my local Primary Care registration procedure .
People will take their anger out on any authority in Power at the time as a backlash reaction to this despicable act .
Starmer maybe not his fault in this case is being made out as the go to devil .
However his past history as a CPS Prosecutor , useless, added to a Human Rights lawyer will lead me to state , it happened on your watch mate , your manifesto pledge on law and order are so far out of reach , in some areas knife crime and mob rule governs .
Sure the process of appeals against this monsters sentence will start soon , legal aid at the taxpayers expense added to the mental health claim will drag through the Courts . |
For sure,his legal team will appeal
It’s his right,don’t ya know | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
