Kemi Badenoch is 100% right on this – politicalbetting.com

FPT:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.

Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?

Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.

How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?

Not targeting people?

Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.

If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.

EDIT:

Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.

So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.

I was asked why people blowing up cameras aren't being done for terrorism (seems that they are at least being investigated by terrorism police). I gave an answer.

But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "yeah, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."

Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Regretfully I clicked on a Tweet about the Southport sentencing hearing and I am disgusted to see people posting, some with blue ticks, saying it was a hoax using crisis actors.

What a fucking cesspit.

God almighty. That is just awful. I know they may fall foul of the law but think of the families and people reading this. Idiots.

It's like Sandy Hook has been imported over here.

I wonder what social media would have made of the Dunblane massacre?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Regretfully I clicked on a Tweet about the Southport sentencing hearing and I am disgusted to see people posting, some with blue ticks, saying it was a hoax using crisis actors.

What a fucking cesspit.

God almighty. That is just awful. I know they may fall foul of the law but think of the families and people reading this. Idiots.

It's like Sandy Hook has been imported over here.

I wonder what social media would have made of the Dunblane massacre?

A deliberate Psy-Op by bad faith actors to confiscate guns from people, probably.

…

TheScreamingEagles said:

Regretfully I clicked on a Tweet about the Southport sentencing hearing and I am disgusted to see people posting, some with blue ticks, saying it was a hoax using crisis actors.

What a fucking cesspit.

I’m sure, as it’s all a big fake, they won’t object if we lock them in a school gymnasium and throw Rudakubana in with a couple of kitchen knives will they?

I mean, they’ve got nothing to worry about, right?

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

Trains shutting down. Lothian Buses saying to check at the time.

This seems sensible - one met website is wondering about comparing it to Glasgow 1968.

But I don't want it to be bad!

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

Trains shutting down. Lothian Buses saying to check at the time.

This seems sensible - one met website is wondering about comparing it to Glasgow 1968..

Student riots ?

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

That seems like a bit of an overreaction for some strong wind.

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

Trains shutting down. Lothian Buses saying to check at the time.

This seems sensible - one met website is wondering about comparing it to Glasgow 1968..

Student riots ?

Nothing so tasty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Scotland_storm

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Regretfully I clicked on a Tweet about the Southport sentencing hearing and I am disgusted to see people posting, some with blue ticks, saying it was a hoax using crisis actors.

What a fucking cesspit.

God almighty. That is just awful. I know they may fall foul of the law but think of the families and people reading this. Idiots.

It's like Sandy Hook has been imported over here.

I wonder what social media would have made of the Dunblane massacre?

A deliberate Psy-Op by bad faith actors to confiscate guns from people, probably.

Could well be bollocks but this whistle blowing from a supposed Twitter employee has been doing the rounds.

Elon Musk's and X's Role in 2024 Election Interference
https://theconcernedbird.substack.com/p/elon-musks-and-xs-role-in-2024-election

Would explain a lot about current social media trends.

Kemi is of course correct

Truss should stay quiet and not distract form the absolute bag of shite this government is.

AnneJGP said:

For once I'm finding the thread header somewhat confusing. Liz Truss reminding the country of John Major's disastrous tenure? Is there a paragraph or a sentence missing perhaps?

@TSE is from the Cameron/Osborne generation of Tories who were utterly in awe of New Labour.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also from the Guardian article.

So far Badenoch has steered clear of criticising Truss, but tensions between the two were revealed in this week’s edition of the Spectator.

The magazine reported that Truss told one of its journalists in Washington that she believed Badenoch to be a “[Michael] Gove plant”, referring to the former cabinet minister and now the magazine’s editor.

Coca?

AnneJGP said:

For once I'm finding the thread header somewhat confusing. Liz Truss reminding the country of John Major's disastrous tenure? Is there a paragraph or a sentence missing perhaps?

Oops, I misgendered Liz Truss.

Carnyx said:

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

Trains shutting down. Lothian Buses saying to check at the time.

This seems sensible - one met website is wondering about comparing it to Glasgow 1968..

Student riots ?

Nothing so tasty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Scotland_storm

I note it wasn't widely reported in the UK press.
I was very young at the time, and I've no recollection of it at all.

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Regretfully I clicked on a Tweet about the Southport sentencing hearing and I am disgusted to see people posting, some with blue ticks, saying it was a hoax using crisis actors.

What a fucking cesspit.

What? Are these left-wing conspiracy theorists saying it was a conspiracy by right wingers to make, er. Rwandans seem bad? Or right-wing conspiracy theorists saying it was a conspiracy by left-wingers to provoke riots by right-wingers thereby making right-winger look bad? Or centrist conspiracy theorists saying it was a conspiracy by right- and/or left-wingers to make the government look stupid? I don't understand.

It's mostly hard right wing.

In brief, hard right view is that it was a set up so Starmer smear/could lock up people who don't like immigration so the great replacement can take place, that WEF paid for it.

HYUFD said:

AnneJGP said:

For once I'm finding the thread header somewhat confusing. Liz Truss reminding the country of John Major's disastrous tenure? Is there a paragraph or a sentence missing perhaps?

To be fair to Major despite Black Wednesday in 1997 he left office with the economy in rather batter shape than Truss did, indeed in better shape than Labour left it in 2010 too

We didn't know what we had at the time...

DavidL said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

That seems like a bit of an overreaction for some strong wind.

Doesn't it? Its actually preternaturally still here at the moment on the east coast. No doubt this will change but jeez.

Not so sure abouyt it hbeing an overreaction. Been looking at the weather equivalent of PB. Rather like PB, many are very unhappy about the prognostications, but one or two are excitedly jumping up and down at the thought of death and damage.

I remember 1968 - only time I ever saw my father coming into the bedroom to check the window.

TheScreamingEagles said:

williamglenn said:

AnneJGP said:

For once I'm finding the thread header somewhat confusing. Liz Truss reminding the country of John Major's disastrous tenure? Is there a paragraph or a sentence missing perhaps?

@TSE is from the Cameron/Osborne generation of Tories who were utterly in awe of New Labour.

I am not in awe of New Labour, and I never have been.

Was anyone "in awe" of them ?
I thought them a bunch of chancers from the start, though I acknowledge Blair was a formidable politician.

TheScreamingEagles said:

AnneJGP said:

For once I'm finding the thread header somewhat confusing. Liz Truss reminding the country of John Major's disastrous tenure? Is there a paragraph or a sentence missing perhaps?

Oops, I misgendered Liz Truss.

Oh, thanks, I was wondering who would care about what happened a quarter of a century ago.

dixiedean said:

So. Was this all a plot to force us to have more guns and armed teachers or summat?
And what about the poor fash curious locked up for rioting over a hoax?
Thick twats.
How do you train to be a "crisis actor"? Is there a special department at RADA? Are they all in Equity?
It's all too complex for my poor brain.

According to BAFTA,

“To be a crisis actor you must complete 3 relevant modules at RADA or other accredited institutions.

Modules include Crisis Mime, Crisis Interpretive Dance and Crisis Improv.”

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

That seems like a bit of an overreaction for some strong wind.

Doesn't it? Its actually preternaturally still here at the moment on the east coast. No doubt this will change but jeez.

Not so sure abouyt it hbeing an overreaction. Been looking at the weather equivalent of PB. Rather like PB, many are very unhappy about the prognostications, but one or two are excitedly jumping up and down at the thought of death and damage.

I remember 1968 - only time I ever saw my father coming into the bedroom to check the window.

They’ll issue a weather warning for anything these days. The whole scale is poorly calibrated, to the point that people will take the actually important warnings less seriously.

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

That seems like a bit of an overreaction for some strong wind.

Doesn't it? Its actually preternaturally still here at the moment on the east coast. No doubt this will change but jeez.

Not so sure abouyt it hbeing an overreaction. Been looking at the weather equivalent of PB. Rather like PB, many are very unhappy about the prognostications, but one or two are excitedly jumping up and down at the thought of death and damage.

I remember 1968 - only time I ever saw my father coming into the bedroom to check the window.

They’ll issue a weather warning for anything these days. The whole scale is poorly calibrated, to the point that people will take the actually important warnings less seriously.

The discussion was actually on that - but on why the UKMO were being so slow about issuing the red.

boulay said:

dixiedean said:

So. Was this all a plot to force us to have more guns and armed teachers or summat?
And what about the poor fash curious locked up for rioting over a hoax?
Thick twats.
How do you train to be a "crisis actor"? Is there a special department at RADA? Are they all in Equity?
It's all too complex for my poor brain.

According to BAFTA,

“To be a crisis actor you must complete 3 relevant modules at RADA or other accredited institutions.

Modules include Crisis Mime, Crisis Interpretive Dance and Crisis Improv.”

Disappointing, it ought to be the audience member who stands in for the leading man/woman in an emergency.

Casino_Royale said:

Liz Truss has neither the self-awareness nor the emotional intelligence to do this, and, for her own self-esteem, needs to feel she was the victim of a conspiracy to live with herself.

So, the Tories need to continue to price in outbursts and interventions from her. What they can do is distance themselves from her.

She's an Alan Partridgesque figure still desperately trying to remain relevant when things have moved on. Not a bad person but someone whose time has come and gone. That's Alan.

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

Those offices where WFH is allowed will be a lot more productive than those where it is banned.

deleted

I'm still (just about) a member of the Conservative Party, although I didn't vote for them at GE2024... the reason being that Truss was, then, the candidate for my constituency. I voted for the eventual winner because Truss is, to me and has been for years, an absolute copper bottomed embarrassment. The new guy, who I've met, is an excellent local MP versus Truss's total and complete invisibility. That the once more-or-less safest Tory seat in the country should fall to Labour has to say how much complete contempt the local electorate had for her. I wish she'd shut up and go away, and I would be very very very grateful if Badenoch would expel her from the Party. That might send a suitable message to the electorate for the future.

(I should point out that my vote was in the full and certain knowledge that Labour were going to win by miles, and therefore there was no danger in getting rid of a particular MP from what is normally 'my side' whom I detest!)

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

FPT:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.

Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?

Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.

How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?

Not targeting people?

Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.

If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.

EDIT:

Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.

So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.

I was asked why people blowing up cameras aren't being done for terrorism (seems that they are at least being investigated by terrorism police). I gave an answer.

But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "yeah, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."

Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.

Also FPT:

I don't actually think people blowing up ULEZ cameras are terrorists. I was just using it to demonstrate that your position was absurd - and by extension, the law too.

I think terrorism needs quite a substantial and considered ideological grounding. I don't think there is evidence that's the case in Southport or for the ULEZ people.

What I want to know is, how did he find this group to attack? He clearly did, as that's why he took the taxi there. Did he have issues with Taylor Swift? The similarities with Manchester are obvious. And I want the police tell us why they are not the same (men who hate strong women like Grande and Swift).

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

AnneJGP said:

For once I'm finding the thread header somewhat confusing. Liz Truss reminding the country of John Major's disastrous tenure? Is there a paragraph or a sentence missing perhaps?

To be fair to Major despite Black Wednesday in 1997 he left office with the economy in rather batter shape than Truss did, indeed in better shape than Labour left it in 2010 too

We didn't know what we had at the time...

I did, 1997 was my first election and I voted Tory.

The poshest voters generally voted Tory in 1997 and through to 2017, LD in 2019 and Tory or LD in 2024, much like you

MaxPB said:

I think the best thing Kemi can do is publicly fall out with Truss and force her to defect to Reform so all of the mad stuff she says becomes their problem.

It's funny because some of the stuff she said wasn't mad, but it has become so by association with her.

I had no problem with cutting the top rate to 40p again to drive aspiration, and attract wealth creators and investment- just as George Osborne wanted to do 12 years ago- but she's totally shat that bed.

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

FPT:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.

Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?

Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.

How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?

Not targeting people?

Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.

If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.

EDIT:

Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.

So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.

I was asked why people blowing up cameras aren't being done for terrorism (seems that they are at least being investigated by terrorism police). I gave an answer.

But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "yeah, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."

Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.

Also FPT:

I don't actually think people blowing up ULEZ cameras are terrorists. I was just using it to demonstrate that your position was absurd - and by extension, the law too.

I think terrorism needs quite a substantial and considered ideological grounding. I don't think there is evidence that's the case in Southport or for the ULEZ people.

The ULEZ stiff seems to have gone quiet.

I still see conspiracy-mongers out about LTNs (it's the WEF !!!), but not much else.

(But Susan Hall is still riding her outrage unicycle.)

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

FPT:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.

Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?

Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.

How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?

Not targeting people?

Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.

If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.

EDIT:

Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.

So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.

I was asked why people blowing up cameras aren't being done for terrorism (seems that they are at least being investigated by terrorism police). I gave an answer.

But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "yeah, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."

Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.

Also FPT:

I don't actually think people blowing up ULEZ cameras are terrorists. I was just using it to demonstrate that your position was absurd - and by extension, the law too.

I think terrorism needs quite a substantial and considered ideological grounding. I don't think there is evidence that's the case in Southport or for the ULEZ people.

What I want to know is, how did he find this group to attack? He clearly did, as that's why he took the taxi there. Did he have issues with Taylor Swift? The similarities with Manchester are obvious. And I want the police tell us why they are not the same (men who hate strong women like Grande and Swift).

That's the question. Was he looking for somewhere with young people, women, or white people - or some combination thereof? Then you might start to look at terrorism, or hate crime or whatever.

On Topics:

Hopefully Mad Lizzie will refuse to be silences and she'll bugger off to REF taking Sue-Ellen with her...

Oh and afternoon PB.

tlg86 said:

david_herdson said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

FPT:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.

Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?

Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.

How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?

Not targeting people?

Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.

If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.

EDIT:

Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.

So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.

I was asked why people blowing up cameras aren't being done for terrorism (seems that they are at least being investigated by terrorism police). I gave an answer.

But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "yeah, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."

Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.

Also FPT:

I don't actually think people blowing up ULEZ cameras are terrorists. I was just using it to demonstrate that your position was absurd - and by extension, the law too.

I think terrorism needs quite a substantial and considered ideological grounding. I don't think there is evidence that's the case in Southport or for the ULEZ people.

What I want to know is, how did he find this group to attack? He clearly did, as that's why he took the taxi there. Did he have issues with Taylor Swift? The similarities with Manchester are obvious. And I want the police tell us why they are not the same (men who hate strong women like Grande and Swift).

Leaving aside what the law says, any sensible definition of terrorism has to involve the inducement of terror in either the population as a whole or a specific section of it, and - I'd argue - with the intent to change either government policy or public behaviour towards that which the terrorist favours.

Psychopaths are not terrorists. Murderous nihilists who just want to see the world burn are not terrorists. Serial killers are not terrorists, unless there is motive in their actions beyond the moment. There has to be an expectation of, and fear of, future violence if the terrorists' policy agenda is not met, either from the group or individual involved, or at least from others they expect to pick up the cause if they're arrested or killed.

Did Starmer get this wrong?

https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/876688634333802497

@Keir_Starmer
All thoughts with the victims & all those affected by the terrorist attack in Finsbury Park. We must stand united against all these attacks.
7:30 AM · Jun 19, 2017

Yes, because his original plan was to murder Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Sadiq Khan.

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

FPT:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.

Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?

Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.

How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?

Not targeting people?

Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.

If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.

EDIT:

Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.

So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.

I was asked why people blowing up cameras aren't being done for terrorism (seems that they are at least being investigated by terrorism police). I gave an answer.

But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "yeah, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."

Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.

Also FPT:

I don't actually think people blowing up ULEZ cameras are terrorists. I was just using it to demonstrate that your position was absurd - and by extension, the law too.

I think terrorism needs quite a substantial and considered ideological grounding. I don't think there is evidence that's the case in Southport or for the ULEZ people.

What I want to know is, how did he find this group to attack? He clearly did, as that's why he took the taxi there. Did he have issues with Taylor Swift? The similarities with Manchester are obvious. And I want the police tell us why they are not the same (men who hate strong women like Grande and Swift).

That's the question. Was he looking for somewhere with young people, women, or white people - or some combination thereof? Then you might start to look at terrorism, or hate crime or whatever.

Given that the one that he didn't get to carry out was a school, I'd say he was looking for a group of children.

Cumulonimbus said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

That seems like a bit of an overreaction for some strong wind.

Doesn't it? Its actually preternaturally still here at the moment on the east coast. No doubt this will change but jeez.

Not so sure abouyt it hbeing an overreaction. Been looking at the weather equivalent of PB. Rather like PB, many are very unhappy about the prognostications, but one or two are excitedly jumping up and down at the thought of death and damage.

I remember 1968 - only time I ever saw my father coming into the bedroom to check the window.

They’ll issue a weather warning for anything these days. The whole scale is poorly calibrated, to the point that people will take the actually important warnings less seriously.

The discussion was actually on that - but on why the UKMO were being so slow about issuing the red.

Isn't there a rumour that one of the models is showing a record UK low? In that event they don't how much choice but to issue a red. The level of severity is going to override the uncertainty on the risk matrix.

Very long time lurker here (talking back to the coalition days) but some weather chat has prompted me to finally pop my posting cherry. For context, I'm a meteorologist by profession for a private competitor to the Met Office.

The winds expected for this storm are pretty noteworthy even for Scotland, it's not every winter we get a risk of 90-100mph winds, and even for the Central Belt we can expected 80+ gusts. For any folks in the west of Ireland, however, it will be seriously dangerous. The red warning is completely warranted, and at least they issued it in a timely manner - for Eunice it wasn't issued until 4am on the day of the event despite it looking nailed on for days beforehand.

Anyway, absolutely love following this place and I'll probably continue to largely lurk, but I cannot resist some weather talk!

Thank you and welcome!

MattW said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

FPT:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.

Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?

Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.

How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?

Not targeting people?

Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.

If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.

EDIT:

Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.

So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.

I was asked why people blowing up cameras aren't being done for terrorism (seems that they are at least being investigated by terrorism police). I gave an answer.

But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "yeah, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."

Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.

Also FPT:

I don't actually think people blowing up ULEZ cameras are terrorists. I was just using it to demonstrate that your position was absurd - and by extension, the law too.

I think terrorism needs quite a substantial and considered ideological grounding. I don't think there is evidence that's the case in Southport or for the ULEZ people.

What I want to know is, how did he find this group to attack? He clearly did, as that's why he took the taxi there. Did he have issues with Taylor Swift? The similarities with Manchester are obvious. And I want the police tell us why they are not the same (men who hate strong women like Grande and Swift).

That's the question. Was he looking for somewhere with young people, women, or white people - or some combination thereof? Then you might start to look at terrorism, or hate crime or whatever.

Given that the one that he didn't get to carry out was a school, I'd say he was looking for a group of children.

It sounds like he was basically looking for a soft target to act out his violence. Poor kids.

bondegezou said:

Taz said:

Casino_Royale said:

Liz Truss has neither the self-awareness nor the emotional intelligence to do this, and, for her own self-esteem, needs to feel she was the victim of a conspiracy to live with herself.

So, the Tories need to continue to price in outbursts and interventions from her. What they can do is distance themselves from her.

She's an Alan Partridgesque figure still desperately trying to remain relevant when things have moved on. Not a bad person but someone whose time has come and gone. That's Alan.

Alan Partridge didn’t crash the economy.

No, it bounced back.

Ah, my coat.

Cumulonimbus said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

That seems like a bit of an overreaction for some strong wind.

Doesn't it? Its actually preternaturally still here at the moment on the east coast. No doubt this will change but jeez.

Not so sure abouyt it hbeing an overreaction. Been looking at the weather equivalent of PB. Rather like PB, many are very unhappy about the prognostications, but one or two are excitedly jumping up and down at the thought of death and damage.

I remember 1968 - only time I ever saw my father coming into the bedroom to check the window.

They’ll issue a weather warning for anything these days. The whole scale is poorly calibrated, to the point that people will take the actually important warnings less seriously.

The discussion was actually on that - but on why the UKMO were being so slow about issuing the red.

Isn't there a rumour that one of the models is showing a record UK low? In that event they don't how much choice but to issue a red. The level of severity is going to override the uncertainty on the risk matrix.

Very long time lurker here (talking back to the coalition days) but some weather chat has prompted me to finally pop my posting cherry. For context, I'm a meteorologist by profession for a private competitor to the Met Office.

The winds expected for this storm are pretty noteworthy even for Scotland, it's not every winter we get a risk of 90-100mph winds, and even for the Central Belt we can expected 80+ gusts. For any folks in the west of Ireland, however, it will be seriously dangerous. The red warning is completely warranted, and at least they issued it in a timely manner - for Eunice it wasn't issued until 4am on the day of the event despite it looking nailed on for days beforehand.

Anyway, absolutely love following this place and I'll probably continue to largely lurk, but I cannot resist some weather talk!

Welcome to PB, nice username, and let’s hope everyone in the affected areas takes heed of the warnings.

Min 52 years. Judge doing as much as he can, I think.

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

AnneJGP said:

For once I'm finding the thread header somewhat confusing. Liz Truss reminding the country of John Major's disastrous tenure? Is there a paragraph or a sentence missing perhaps?

To be fair to Major despite Black Wednesday in 1997 he left office with the economy in rather batter shape than Truss did, indeed in better shape than Labour left it in 2010 too

We didn't know what we had at the time...

I did, 1997 was my first election and I voted Tory.

1997 was my first election and I voted Labour. I suspect that neither of us voted for the winning candidate!

Big_G_NorthWales said:

51 years and 190 days

Left of the current Trump term?

tlg86 said:

david_herdson said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

FPT:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.

Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?

Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.

How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?

Not targeting people?

Ah, so suddenly it's not automatically terrorism if people aren't targeted. But the Terrorism Act is clear that property counts, not just people - which makes sense, if you consider some of the IRA bombings.

If the police want to do people blowing up ULEZ cameras for terrorism, that's fine by me.

EDIT:

Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

I guess blowing up ULEZ cameras isn't considered serious damage to property.

So we've gone full circle to a bomb not being serious damage.

I was asked why people blowing up cameras aren't being done for terrorism (seems that they are at least being investigated by terrorism police). I gave an answer.

But, I find it interesting that we've gone from why Rudakubana might be in a different category to Wayne Couzens, Jack the Ripper etc., to "yeah, but people blowing up ULEZ cameras are also terrorists."

Can these people not see that there might be a difference between blowing up people and blowing up ULEZ cameras? Now, maybe the authorities should be using every piece of legislation they can to stop people causing damage to infrastructure like ULEZ cameras. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that murdering girls en masse isn't terrorism.

Also FPT:

I don't actually think people blowing up ULEZ cameras are terrorists. I was just using it to demonstrate that your position was absurd - and by extension, the law too.

I think terrorism needs quite a substantial and considered ideological grounding. I don't think there is evidence that's the case in Southport or for the ULEZ people.

What I want to know is, how did he find this group to attack? He clearly did, as that's why he took the taxi there. Did he have issues with Taylor Swift? The similarities with Manchester are obvious. And I want the police tell us why they are not the same (men who hate strong women like Grande and Swift).

Leaving aside what the law says, any sensible definition of terrorism has to involve the inducement of terror in either the population as a whole or a specific section of it, and - I'd argue - with the intent to change either government policy or public behaviour towards that which the terrorist favours.

Psychopaths are not terrorists. Murderous nihilists who just want to see the world burn are not terrorists. Serial killers are not terrorists, unless there is motive in their actions beyond the moment. There has to be an expectation of, and fear of, future violence if the terrorists' policy agenda is not met, either from the group or individual involved, or at least from others they expect to pick up the cause if they're arrested or killed.

Did Starmer get this wrong?

https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/876688634333802497

@Keir_Starmer
All thoughts with the victims & all those affected by the terrorist attack in Finsbury Park. We must stand united against all these attacks.
7:30 AM · Jun 19, 2017

I’d like to live in a world where we spent less time collectively arguing over whether to label particular incidents as terrorism or not terrorism, and spent more time stopping people being killed any which way.

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

51 years and 190 days

Left of the current Trump term?

My wife and I have been in tears listening to the judge and the descriptions of these heinous crimes

Just utterly shocking and inexplicable

Very emotional

boulay said:

dixiedean said:

So. Was this all a plot to force us to have more guns and armed teachers or summat?
And what about the poor fash curious locked up for rioting over a hoax?
Thick twats.
How do you train to be a "crisis actor"? Is there a special department at RADA? Are they all in Equity?
It's all too complex for my poor brain.

According to BAFTA,

“To be a crisis actor you must complete 3 relevant modules at RADA or other accredited institutions.

Modules include Crisis Mime, Crisis Interpretive Dance and Crisis Improv.”

The lecture on "Explaining my atrocity thru the medium of dance" is quite popular. Although the one where the mime pretends to blow up an invisible box with an invisible bomb has, for understandable reasons, been sidelined in recent years.

Northern_Al said:

Cumulonimbus said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

RobD said:

DavidL said:

We now have red weather warnings across central Scotland and not only the schools but all the courts are shutting for the day. This had better be bad. It is going to cause yet more backlog. You will be relieved to learn that the pursuit of justice truth and liberty will continue online from my house.

That seems like a bit of an overreaction for some strong wind.

Doesn't it? Its actually preternaturally still here at the moment on the east coast. No doubt this will change but jeez.

Not so sure abouyt it hbeing an overreaction. Been looking at the weather equivalent of PB. Rather like PB, many are very unhappy about the prognostications, but one or two are excitedly jumping up and down at the thought of death and damage.

I remember 1968 - only time I ever saw my father coming into the bedroom to check the window.

They’ll issue a weather warning for anything these days. The whole scale is poorly calibrated, to the point that people will take the actually important warnings less seriously.

The discussion was actually on that - but on why the UKMO were being so slow about issuing the red.

Isn't there a rumour that one of the models is showing a record UK low? In that event they don't how much choice but to issue a red. The level of severity is going to override the uncertainty on the risk matrix.

Very long time lurker here (talking back to the coalition days) but some weather chat has prompted me to finally pop my posting cherry. For context, I'm a meteorologist by profession for a private competitor to the Met Office.

The winds expected for this storm are pretty noteworthy even for Scotland, it's not every winter we get a risk of 90-100mph winds, and even for the Central Belt we can expected 80+ gusts. For any folks in the west of Ireland, however, it will be seriously dangerous. The red warning is completely warranted, and at least they issued it in a timely manner - for Eunice it wasn't issued until 4am on the day of the event despite it looking nailed on for days beforehand.

Anyway, absolutely love following this place and I'll probably continue to largely lurk, but I cannot resist some weather talk!

Welcome.
We do cricket as well as weather.

And Deltics.