hypochondriac

Just like the attack is now being blamed on the internet to justify draconian censorship measures. Yes some people engaged in unacceptable violent disorder in the immediate aftermath when emotions were running high and were rightly punished but some were jailed for extraordinary amounts of time in what was a disproportionate response. When Rayner dismissed links to terrorism as 'fake news' and 'conspiracy theories' this is a lie given that she would have known that that is exactly what it was and as Starmer has admitted it was now. Like I said, I understand the desire for short term gain by withholding the information and lying about the circumstances of the attack but longer term it's going to be incredibly damaging. The next Radukabana, why will anyone believe anything the authorities tell them about what happened?

Delaying information from being released for months when it was released prior to the trial anyway had no bearing on justice. Information liable to collapse a trial or cause contempt of court should obviously not be released but there was none here. It was clearly withheld because Starmer didn't want to make people angrier than they already were.

There clearly was a cover up at the time as information was withheld from the public with threat of arrest when the information that is now known would have had a 0% chance of collapsing a court case. All it's done is undermined public trust in institutions. I agree with whelk, full transparency as early as possible required.

I think it's clear that as they didn't find evidence of an underlying ideology motivating his crimes, they didn't think that it met the current definition of a terrorist attack under the letter of the law. Starmer basically admitted that he is clearly a terrorist and that the current definition as written is wrong and that he will change it. My main issue is Starmer's claim that he wasn't able to mention the bit about ricin or the terrorist manual as it could collapse the court case. This strikes me as untrue as firstly that information came out prior to the court case in any even and secondly none of that information would have any chance of collapsing the case. A cynic would suggest this information was deliberately withheld from the public in order to try not to pour petrol on the flames of anger in the aftermath. I understand that line of thinking but withholding it has really just further undermined public trust in the authorities. Complete bollocks imo that releasing that information would have had any chance of collapsing a court case.

Apparently the home secretary is contacting social media companies asking them to remove 'dangerous content' that Rudakubana supposedly accessed. Firstly why wasn't this done earlier as presumably this was known about months ago? Unless it's being done for PR purposes now. Secondly what is this dangerous content? If it's illegal like the terrorist manual then that is covered under existing laws and should already be removed. You could be suspicious that they are using this incident to further censor speech they don't like.

No he wasn't that's ridiculous. Stop lying.

But we are told on here all the time that the real problem is far right extremism.

How is it pro Israel to accurately describe what Hamas is and why it is pointless and potentially dangerous to negotiate with them?

Yeah that's stupid. Not sure what the justification for that could possibly be. Americans are a bit weird tbf.

You're probably alright if you're not prompting anal sex to children.

Only two genders. Some will be mad on here.

Throw out that filthy DEI Donald.

Hopefully it leads to just the right amount of hate towards the right type of people.

An awful lot to like about many of his executive orders.

Given that we've had Prevent investigations for all manner of things, it appears quite incredible that Radukabana was referred three times and it was deemed that intervention was not required. Seems there's a case to answer there about if the system is fit for purpose. Is Prevent turning a blind eye to certain types of extremism?

See above. This stuff was being pointed out since the start of this thread.

It was never close. Your attitude has no understanding of what extremist Islam is and why it's impossible to negotiate with it. Lighthouse was attempting to explain this over a year ago.

Exactly. There isn't a solution. Their children and grandchildren were already guaranteed to face more of the same. As you say they've reduced the threat for now which is about the best they could have done from their perspective.

What was the realistic alternative that would have ended the killing? There wasn't one. I feel like this is going round in circles constantly but Hamas are an islamic extremist organisation that want Israel to cease to exist. Their existence I their land is an affront to them and they will be satisfied when they are killed or at least no longer there. It is not possible to negotiate with terrorists such as this. Destroying Hamas and Hezbollah and preventing them from properly hurting you for a number of years is therefore the best policy albeit a very flawed one full of not great options. There will be many more deaths in the future regardless unfortunately but that's religious fundamentalism for you.

Powerful stuff. Sounds like they know what a woman is in America.

The face of evil if ever I saw one. Reminds me of this

As I said, you have no evidence that I see murderous acts as acceptable. There is no evidence for that claim so it is baseless. If you have evidence for it then produce it rather than trying to smear me. You're more like soggy than you care to admit - throwing around insults with nothing specific to back it up. Killing the likes of Hezbollah has crippled them for a generation. Let's hope that enough Hamas have been killed to do the same to them. The goal is to weaken them to such a degree that they cannot pose a credible threat for a long time. I certainly won't be unhappy if murderous terrorist scum are killed.

Another baseless claim. I never suggested the IDF should be the one throwing the hypothetical grenade, only that it would be a net positive if someone managed to do it. Maybe one of them could come to their senses and engage in some friendly fire. I stand staunchly for the eradication of extremist terrorists that seek to terrorise and murder and kidnap hostages. You agree that their actions are abhorrent so if they were taken out in the manner I describe presumably you wouldn't be upset about it. That's an awful lot of effort to go to if you're actually agreeing with me after all.

If you mentioned killing a group of Nigerian terrorists I wouldn't accuse you of wanting all Nigerians dead! Just the terrorist ones who hold innocent people hostage. See how it works? I'm not sure what you're finding difficult. You understand that kidnapping innocent people and commiting terrorist acts is a bad thing yes?

Yes I mentioned a group of Muslims. I didn't say all Muslims. Do you have difficulty reading? I'd quite happily see all those evil bastards who terrorise women and hold innocent people hostages put to death. Presumably you'd also be defending adebalajo in the same manner.