hypochondriac

Yes but if the point is to discourage people from replicating what he's done, then they are going to be the ones you want to look out for. 99.9% of regular people are going to be sickened by this regardless of if the details of the killer comes out or not and those who would be encouraged by it are going to find out the details anyway. Much better IMO to make it plain to any potential copycats that they will be widely seen as the pathetic frauds that they are.

I'm on a phone and quoted myself in error. I should have edited the original post.

Posted in error.

TBF I'm not sure how effective it is in the age of the internet. The people you don't want it to affect like potential copycats are already going to know his name. It is quite unedifying though when we go through all the personal details of the killer which does make him appear to be special or some sort of celebrity so I'd be happy with starving him of publicity for that reason. Personally what I think would work better though is a concerted effort to humiliate and belittle the killers. Pull up every embarrassing thing he has said and mock him relentlessly and make it clear that that will be the fate of anyone who attempts to do something like this thinking they might get some sort of fame. I bet that would have more of an effect.

I think it would be hard to argue that if we were to revoke article 50 and then attempt to go through this all again in a year or so. We won't revoke it but if we did, we won't be triggering article 50 again unless we get a new government with completely different policies which isn't going to happen.

From memory the ruling from the courts said something about not being able to use article 50 in bad faith- so we can't revoke it then invoke it again as a negotiating tactic which seems fair enough to me. Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Bizarre to think there will be no one in. We will get three in at least IMO.

A new striker, CB and AM is quite a few important bits of the team. Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Two sides of the same coin sadly.

Water it down? All I did was describe him how he described himself. He's a racist evil scumbag.

I would have thought the source was clear when I said "his manifesto."

From his manifesto.

He said he would not die because he wanted to drain resources from the state he hates for the rest of his life. Great bloke.

Yep. His manifesto is the sort of rambling, racist screed you would expect about invaders and population rates. Mental.

Bloody hell some evil "eco fascist" apparently shooting 40 people and live streaming the whole thing. Absolutely horrendous.

Lol "I've had him on ignore." sure you have big guy.

If he's not a threat to our security then why is it in any way relevant? Go and discuss Dutch national security somewhere else if that's what you want to discuss.

I think that view will be in the minority...

Thanks but I've seen more than enough. He claims he's not saying she's an innocent victim but the. Goes on about brainwashibhg and how she was just a housewife. It's clear he's downplaying her culpability.

How is a Dutch man more of a threat to our security than someone who was until recently was a British citizen? How is he more of a threat than any other random Jihadi fighter who happens to be in Syria? I'd consider an ex British Jihadi to be a much greater security threat to the UK than a random Dutch member. It's because soggy is desperate to portray her as some innocent brainwashed victim in all this who wouldn't hurt a fly due to his clear bias. It's pathetic and wrong.

Indeed. In fact even in the last post soggy is saying how he is more concerned about the male ISIS member than the female one. What a racist and sexist way of looking at the world. "Shamima Begum is a good example because she does not regret what she did. People like her still support ISIS. It is only because they are losing the war that she and others want to return home. They have no regrets about participating in genocide, sex slavery or imprisoning and killing Yazidi women. It is astonishing that they expect to just return to their old lives just because the caliphate is losing ground. But wherever they go, they will continue to spread their ideology."

Being Muslim makes you automatically guilty? I've read some garbage on here but that's one of the most idiotic things ever written. She's guilty because she joined and actively supported a death cult that raped and murdered people and she continues to show no remorse. The fact she is a a Muslim or female couldn't be more irrelevant other than it may have been a motivating factor for her joining.

And there we go. 149 loss. Pathetic. She has to go.

Because May thought she could get something legally enforceable through on the backstop which seems to be the major sticking point for most. She couldn't so she will lose heavily again.

Vpn is your friend.