Jump to content

Plymouth shootings


Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

No, I wonder why you don’t do anything about the trolls and the WUMs. You let a small group of people constantly jump all over posts that go against their agendas. Isn’t it time you sorted it out? For a site that charges money for membership it is very poorly regulated.

Yet you are repeatedly allowed to call people racists, right wing Tommy Robinson fans and rape apologists because you don’t like them. As others have pointed out the only troll on this thread is you. You really are a tiresome prick. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yet you are repeatedly allowed to call people racists, right wing Tommy Robinson fans and rape apologists because you don’t like them. As others have pointed out the only troll on this thread is you. You really are a tiresome prick. 

I don't want soggy banned. On the contrary I think his posts should be highlighted and he should be free to post his bigoted and horrid views. The more people who see them, the more people understand who he is and they lose any sympathy they may have had for him like the poster above. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

No, I wonder why you don’t do anything about the trolls and the WUMs. You let a small group of people constantly jump all over posts that go against their agendas. Isn’t it time you sorted it out? For a site that charges money for membership it is very poorly regulated.

All you had to do was leave out "we may have some on here". But you can't resist.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't want soggy banned. On the contrary I think his posts should be highlighted and he should be free to post his bigoted and horrid views. The more people who see them, the more people understand who he is and they lose any sympathy they may have had for him like the poster above. 

I agree. I would never want anyone banned. Soggy tries to place this nice guy but the more he posts the more the mask slips. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t know too much about gun control, is it the normal plods responsibility or is there a separate firearm type agency whose sole responsibility is policing gun control? 

It's the Police.

I once saw a bloke handing in a shotgun at a rural Police station. The officer on the desk obviously knew him, and asked why he was handing it over. "I've been keeping it under my bed but don't need it any more. My divorce has finally come through".

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It's the Police.

I once saw a bloke handing in a shotgun at a rural Police station. The officer on the desk obviously knew him, and asked why he was handing it over. "I've been keeping it under my bed but don't need it any more. My divorce has finally come through".

Perhaps a separate agency should be created that would have more time to fully investigate the individual before licences are issued and can also monitor on an ongoing basis. I’d imagine ex plod or ex servicemen would be perfect for it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I haven't seen evidence that this violence was in pursuit of political aims which is the definition of a terrorist. It seems on the face of it that it was just lashingnoutnwoth general anger at the world and those close to him. 

By that definition, the 'terrorist' attacks by ISIS (Manchester arena bombing etc) are also not 'terrorist' attacks as they have no political aims.  Religious motivation and 'revenge' for attacks on Muslims but no political motivations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

By that definition, the 'terrorist' attacks by ISIS (Manchester arena bombing etc) are also not 'terrorist' attacks as they have no political aims.  Religious motivation and 'revenge' for attacks on Muslims but no political motivations.

Don't be silly. The difference is obvious I don't have to spell it out. As you have said yourself, we currently have no evidence to establish if this was done in service of a political or religious ideology or if he simply got pissed off at his mum. The fact it may have been being an Incel that made him angry in the first case doesn't make it terrorism. 

 

It's tragic and horrible whatever it turns out to be anyway. 

Edited by hypochondriac
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t know too much about gun control, is it the normal plods responsibility or is there a separate firearm type agency whose sole responsibility is policing gun control? 

We have a firearms licensing team in Hampshire which is part of the Police. I would expect that everyone who owns one would need some sort of vetting which is also carried out by an internal department. No idea what level the vetting would be at though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Don't be silly. The difference is obvious I don't have to spell it out. As you have said yourself, we currently have no evidence to establish if this was done in service of a political or religious ideology or if he simply got pissed off at his mum. The fact it may have been being an Incel that made him angry in the first case doesn't make it terrorism. 

 

It's tragic and horrible whatever it turns out to be anyway. 

I agree with you on this.  Manchester was terrorism and there was a political aim to cause fear and anguish within "the enemy".  The trouble with an incident like Plymouth is it's not really terrorism but has some of the ingredients of terrorism (extreme ideology/brainwashing) whilst lacking others (organisation/politically relevant targets).

In some ways this sort of attack is less predictable which makes it scary in it's own way.  With the rise of Incel culture and the deepening damage being dished out by social media and forum culture, this sort of random event will likely become more common.  Thank god we have strict gun laws.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

With the rise of Incel culture and the deepening damage being dished out by social media and forum culture, this sort of random event will likely become more common.  Thank god we have strict gun laws.

I guess the internet might make this worse but this killing is not much different to the Hungerford massacre which happened way before social media existed. He was a loner and failure who had issues with his mother, maybe the problems are no different, it's just made more visible by the web?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I guess the internet might make this worse but this killing is not much different to the Hungerford massacre which happened way before social media existed. He was a loner and failure who had issues with his mother, maybe the problems are no different, it's just made more visible by the web?

Yeah, good point, it feels very similar to Hungerford in nature.  I expect the number of young men who feel isolated and hopeless is probably higher now but gun laws are stricter balancing it out somewhat.  There's been a significant rise in Incel driven attacks over the last decade globally (the US and Japan being the obvious examples), some of which could easily be defined as terrorism (far more organised than this).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

I agree with you on this.  Manchester was terrorism and there was a political aim to cause fear and anguish within "the enemy".  The trouble with an incident like Plymouth is it's not really terrorism but has some of the ingredients of terrorism (extreme ideology/brainwashing) whilst lacking others (organisation/politically relevant targets).

In some ways this sort of attack is less predictable which makes it scary in it's own way.  With the rise of Incel culture and the deepening damage being dished out by social media and forum culture, this sort of random event will likely become more common.  Thank god we have strict gun laws.

Yep agree with that. Very little that can be done if its not picked up by the people around them and these people offered support before it's too late. As you say at least we aren't in America. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aintforever said:

I guess the internet might make this worse but this killing is not much different to the Hungerford massacre which happened way before social media existed. He was a loner and failure who had issues with his mother, maybe the problems are no different, it's just made more visible by the web?

And these people can club together and find each other and get egged on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

I agree with you on this.  Manchester was terrorism and there was a political aim to cause fear and anguish within "the enemy".  The trouble with an incident like Plymouth is it's not really terrorism but has some of the ingredients of terrorism (extreme ideology/brainwashing) whilst lacking others (organisation/politically relevant targets).

In some ways this sort of attack is less predictable which makes it scary in it's own way.  With the rise of Incel culture and the deepening damage being dished out by social media and forum culture, this sort of random event will likely become more common.  Thank god we have strict gun laws.

Are you seriously saying that if the only difference in Plymouth was that if he was brown skinned and owned a Koran it would still not be labelled as terrorism? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonnyboy said:

Are you seriously saying that if the only difference in Plymouth was that if he was brown skinned and owned a Koran it would still not be labelled as terrorism? 

I might have been labelled as such by some but anyone labelling it would have been incorrect until such time as the facts became clearer. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jonnyboy said:

Are you seriously saying that if the only difference in Plymouth was that if he was brown skinned and owned a Koran it would still not be labelled as terrorism? 

Not by the counter terrorism units/police, obviously certain parts of the media and population would have called it as such.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/08/2021 at 08:49, hypochondriac said:

I haven't seen evidence that this violence was in pursuit of political aims which is the definition of a terrorist. It seems on the face of it that it was just lashingnoutnwoth general anger at the world and those close to him. 

D & C police seem happy with the evidence....

Quote
Quote

The Plymouth shootings may be reclassified as a terror attack, according to Devon and Cornwall Police.

In a statement, the force said the initial decision not to state Jake Davison's spree as terrorism was made by the National Counter Terrorism Policing Network.

 

But following investigations into Davison's links to the "incel" movement - which stands for involuntarily celibate - this status may be changed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

D & C police seem happy with the evidence....

 

So exactly like I said then. Further investigation may have provided more evidence to suggest that the attack was to further a political ideology. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/08/2021 at 13:53, hypochondriac said:

So exactly like I said then. Further investigation may have provided more evidence to suggest that the attack was to further a political ideology. 

It is bs though. Politics involved. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})