Sick sick world what is wrong with people

[markysimmo]

I see the left starting to blame police cuts for yesterdays attack

A call went in at 1.58pm about the attacker, he was shot dead at 2.03pm

100,000 extra policeman would not have prevented what happened from being stopped any quicker

 

[markysimmo]

The actions of the public have been widely praised, including by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Ms dingdong, who said they had shown "extreme courage".

Videos posted on social media appeared to show passers-by holding Khan down, while a man in a suit could be seen running from him, having apparently retrieved a large knife.

One witness described how a man at the event at Fishmongers' Hall grabbed a narwhal tusk - a long white horn that protrudes from the whale - that was on the wall, and went outside to confront the attacker.

Another person let off a fire extinguisher in the face of the attacker to try to keep him at bay.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I see the left starting to blame police cuts for yesterdays attack

A call went in at 1.58pm about the attacker, he was shot dead at 2.03pm

100,000 extra policeman would not have prevented what happened from being stopped any quicker

I suspect it's in relation to the lack of monitoring of a convicted terrorist out on licence rather than police action on the day?
Either way too early to be politicising it imo.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

The actions of the public have been widely praised, including by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Ms dingdong, who said they had shown "extreme courage".

Videos posted on social media appeared to show passers-by holding Khan down, while a man in a suit could be seen running from him, having apparently retrieved a large knife.

One witness described how a man at the event at Fishmongers' Hall grabbed a narwhal tusk - a long white horn that protrudes from the whale - that was on the wall, and went outside to confront the attacker.

Another person let off a fire extinguisher in the face of the attacker to try to keep him at bay.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1200690348625944577

Incredible.

One of the blokes on the periphery was talking on BBC this morning and he said some of those holding the bloke down were also ex-prisoners. They'd been at the same conference as the terrorist - that's where the stabbings occurred and he had threatened to blow up the building. They chased him out onto the street.
Incredibly brave.

 

[scaramanga]

I see the left starting to blame police cuts for yesterdays attack

A call went in at 1.58pm about the attacker, he was shot dead at 2.03pm

100,000 extra policeman would not have prevented what happened from being stopped any quicker

They're just running scared because Corbyn's always cosying up to terrorists. Just wait until a journalist asks him if he'd have given the kill command

 

[markysimmo]

I suspect it's in relation to the lack of monitoring of a convicted terrorist out on licence rather than police action on the day?
Either way too early to be politicising it imo.

They can’t monitor every single person on tag 24/7 though it’s impossible

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

They're just running scared because Corbyn's always cosying up to terrorists. Just wait until a journalist asks him if he'd have given the kill command

The only political leader from Britain who has ever cosied up to a terrorist was your pin up Thatcher, with that murdering clam Pinochet. Oh you must be so proud of her.

 

[markysimmo]

The only political leader from Britain who has ever cosied up to a terrorist was your pin up Thatcher, with that murdering clam Pinochet. Oh you must be so proud of her.

I see lots of your lot making out it was morally wrong to kill the attacker on the bridge
What a shock

 

[Hootnow]

I suspect it's in relation to the lack of monitoring of a convicted terrorist out on licence rather than police action on the day?
Either way too early to be politicising it imo.

Unfortunately, the Tories, including Patel and even the PM this morning, have been politicising it massively this morning and spouting flagrant lies about it too, with regards to the automatic release rule and when he was convicted. Par for the course for them though, especially Patel, who has to be one of the most vile of our current sorry lot of politicians.

They can’t monitor every single person on tag 24/7 though it’s impossible

Probably a damned sight easier though when you don't cut police numbers drastically. Its like saying you can't save everyone in the hospital, regardless of how many doctors and nurses there are. Factually and objectively correct but doesn't mean that reductions in the numbers of those members of staff won't have an overall impact on health.

I see lots of your lot making out it was morally wrong to kill the attacker on the bridge
What a shock

Could you post some examples of this? Perhaps more importantly, even if there are a couple of idiots on twitter spouting nonsense, why are you taking that as representative of any 'lot', on what has to be, at this point, the cesspit of all forms of social media?

 

[scaramanga]

The only political leader from Britain who has ever cosied up to a terrorist was your pin up Thatcher, with that murdering clam Pinochet. Oh you must be so proud of her.

You have to go back 30 years to attempt some form of equivalence? Even then your attempts fail.

Making use of terrorists against a common enemy to defend our own lands is not the same as being friends with terrorists that attempt to kill our own people or our allies as Corbyn is.

 

[Hootnow]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1201081539418832897

I'm not sure how Marr doesn't reach across and punch him in the face.

Also important to mention that this guy was convicted and jailed in 2012, not before the Tories came into power as they've been desperate to peddle since yesterday.

 

[monkeybarry]

I see lots of your lot making out it was morally wrong to kill the attacker on the bridge
What a shock

From a moral and political point of view, killing him on the bridge is very regrettable.
Firstly, we don't really want our law enforcement to be killing people, that is how our policing works.
Secondly - and I think this is most worrying. It creates a martyr situation.

But public protection must always stay the no.1 priority, so it was unquestionable the right choice to kill - there was no opportunity to constrain.

We may have to be open minded to changing our thinking re; shot to kill. Hopefully not, but we'll see.

 

[monkeybarry]

I see the left starting to blame police cuts for yesterdays attack

A call went in at 1.58pm about the attacker, he was shot dead at 2.03pm

100,000 extra policeman would not have prevented what happened from being stopped any quicker

They are correct though.
And it goes way further than policing numbers.
HMPPS and the prison service has been hugely underfunded and had the stupid privatisation of prisons experiment.

Make no mistake, The Tories have blood on their hands here.
We literally have an offender who asked for help to be de-radicalised and was refused because their was no budget and was then released (correctly as per the sentencing guidelines from what I can tell).
Underfunded system, overstretched depts (with innovation constrained further by rules that state only a minimum value product can be signed off), staff experiencing a decrease in working conditions and wages lagging behind inflation.

And people are surprised?!

That said, the Labour line in favour of IPP sentencing is frightening.

 

[glasgowspur]

They are correct though.
And it goes way further than policing numbers.
HMPPS and the prison service has been hugely underfunded and had the stupid privatisation of prisons experiment.

Make no mistake, The Tories have blood on their hands here.
We literally have an offender who asked for help to be de-radicalised and was refused because their was no budget and was then released (correctly as per the sentencing guidelines from what I can tell).
Underfunded system, overstretched depts (with innovation constrained further by rules that state only a minimum value product can be signed off), staff experiencing a decrease in working conditions and wages lagging behind inflation.

And people are surprised?!

That said, the Labour line in favour of IPP sentencing is frightening.

Help to be de redicalised, it's not a disease or an addiction.
If they know its wrong and want to stop it what help do they need?
Should they claiming its a mental health issue then fine, they should have help. If it's to give up the teachings of an imaginary friend, then no because you're a clam.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Help to be de redicalised, it's not a disease or an addiction.
If they know its wrong and want to stop it what help do they need?
Should they claiming its a mental health issue then fine, they should have help. If it's to give up the teachings of an imaginary friend, then no because you're a clam.

He is said to have asked for help because he wanted to be a good Muslim and a good citizen. I suppose if you do have a religious faith you might not be ready to give that up but might be open to learning how you can practice your faith in a way that is still compliant with its teachings but which is different to the extreme interpretations you have previously been taught and believed to be the correct way to live your life.
Even if it means endorsing a religion, it may well be in the interests of society for the State to help with this rather than do nothing, leave the terrorist to become more entrenched in his views and possibly be influenced by, or for himself to influence, other prisoners. Thereby breeding more extremists.

Then again, the cynical side of me wonders if it was all a ruse to appear de-radicalised whilst always intending to commit an atrocity upon release. Of course it’s impossible to make that judgement from the outside.

From what I can tell the issue was in the sentencing. He was originally given an indeterminate sentence (allowed at that time), with an 8 year minimum. He appealed, and the appeal court judges ruled that an indeterminate sentence was inappropriate because he did not pose any more danger than accomplices who had been given fixed term sentences. So his indeterminate sentence was changed to a 16 year fixed term. Which then made him eligible for the early release after serving half his sentence. Had the indeterminate sentence remained he would have been subject to assessment before release.
It would be interesting to understand why the initial judge believed him to be of sufficient danger to the public to impose an indeterminate sentence, yet the appeal judges were not of that view.

The early release is IMO a bit of a red herring. It means he murdered after 8 years instead of potentially pushing it down the line (if he was that way inclined, why assume he would have acted differently later?).

I’m not clever enough to know what the answer is, but it seems to lie in a mixture of clearer sentencing rules along with far better funded resources for in-prison de-radicalisation and post-prison monitoring.

My fear is that it will be used for political point scoring but nothing will actually change and we’ll be having the same arguments after the next atrocity and the one after that.

 

[monkeybarry]

Help to be de redicalised, it's not a disease or an addiction.
If they know its wrong and want to stop it what help do they need?
Should they claiming its a mental health issue then fine, they should have help. If it's to give up the teachings of an imaginary friend, then no because you're a clam.

Well it's clearly a manipulation of thoughts, like any kind of grooming is. Your post smacks of ignorance and preconceived notions, so I suspect there is little point in trying to explain it.
But in your self righteous bluster you have skipped over the key point - he asked for help to be de-radicalised with the assistance of a de-radicalising professional.
He was told there was no money for this under a system defunded by the Tories.
You state help should have been made available for a mental health issue - I clearly stated help was sought; help was denied.

 

[glasgowspur]

Well it's clearly a manipulation of thoughts, like any kind of grooming is. Your post smacks of ignorance and preconceived notions, so I suspect there is little point in trying to explain it.
But in your self righteous bluster you have skipped over the key point - he asked for help to be de-radicalised with the assistance of a de-radicalising professional.
He was told there was no money for this under a system defunded by the Tories.
You state help should have been made available for a mental health issue - I clearly stated help was sought; help was denied.

Your opinion and your entitled to it, as am I, but I can do withoutthe 'missed the point and you're too stupid or bigoted to waste my time explaining it" thank you very much.

 

[mephitis]

He is said to have asked for help because he wanted to be a good Muslim and a good citizen. I suppose if you do have a religious faith you might not be ready to give that up but might be open to learning how you can practice your faith in a way that is still compliant with its teachings but which is different to the extreme interpretations you have previously been taught and believed to be the correct way to live your life.
Even if it means endorsing a religion, it may well be in the interests of society for the State to help with this rather than do nothing, leave the terrorist to become more entrenched in his views and possibly be influenced by, or for himself to influence, other prisoners. Thereby breeding more extremists.

Then again, the cynical side of me wonders if it was all a ruse to appear de-radicalised whilst always intending to commit an atrocity upon release. Of course it’s impossible to make that judgement from the outside.

From what I can tell the issue was in the sentencing. He was originally given an indeterminate sentence (allowed at that time), with an 8 year minimum. He appealed, and the appeal court judges ruled that an indeterminate sentence was inappropriate because he did not pose any more danger than accomplices who had been given fixed term sentences. So his indeterminate sentence was changed to a 16 year fixed term. Which then made him eligible for the early release after serving half his sentence. Had the indeterminate sentence remained he would have been subject to assessment before release.
It would be interesting to understand why the initial judge believed him to be of sufficient danger to the public to impose an indeterminate sentence, yet the appeal judges were not of that view.

The early release is IMO a bit of a red herring. It means he murdered after 8 years instead of potentially pushing it down the line (if he was that way inclined, why assume he would have acted differently later?).

I’m not clever enough to know what the answer is, but it seems to lie in a mixture of clearer sentencing rules along with far better funded resources for in-prison de-radicalisation and post-prison monitoring.

My fear is that it will be used for political point scoring but nothing will actually change and we’ll be having the same arguments after the next atrocity and the one after that.

Nicely summarised Glenda and I'm totally with you on this point:

"Then again, the cynical side of me wonders if it was all a ruse to appear de-radicalised whilst always intending to commit an atrocity upon release. Of course it’s impossible to make that judgement from the outside."

 

[scaramanga]

He is said to have asked for help because he wanted to be a good Muslim and a good citizen.

He gets to choose one.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

He gets to choose one.

Ideally yes. But we have to find a way to deal with the realities of what people are rather than what we think they should be.
If his beliefs can be taken down a notch or two to ‘relatively benign’ rather than ‘radical and dangerous’ then I’d rather that than the alternative.