MP Shot at constituency surgery

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Lord Melbury wrote:

Suspected killer named as Thomas Mair on Breitbart, may have had “mental health problems”, in receipt of “psychotherapy and medication” it also says.

Breitbart.

I'd never heard of it back then.

It's an "alt-right" website (and we all now know what that is code for). That's a whole can of worms right there.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Sounds like the attacker could be a fascist right winger. So much hate in this whole referendum thing.
Britain First mentioned, but who knows in this world of political mayhem where the truth just doesn't exist.

You really have turned into an odious character.

We, and most certainly you, know absolutely nothing yet as to the motives behind this tragic event.

Stop and think before you throw your accusations about.

Lord Biro's statement supported in every way by evidence presented to the court.

Why are you quoting me? Being judgemental and second guessing before the facts are heard is so typical of us all. This was not the time to score political points.

By all means do it now but not whilst her body was still warm.

The 'I told you so' flame burns brightly

It would appear that on this occasion you were correct.....Bravo Sir Frank!

Actually it was Lord Biro who was most right if you read back but he's no longer here.

I can't help but wonder how somebody like Mair becomes so radicalised, so fervently committed to neo-fascism, Nazi ideology, white supremacy that he resorts to the cold-blooded murder of a democratically elected MP in what can only be described as a terrorist atrocity.

I also note that despite Daily Mail and Sun front pages suggesting that he was mentally ill that mental ill-health played no part whatsoever in his defence during the trial.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Actually it was Lord Biro who was most right if you read back but he's no longer here.

I can't help but wonder how somebody like Mair becomes so radicalised, so fervently committed to neo-fascism, Nazi ideology, white supremacy that he resorts to the cold-blooded murder of a democratically elected MP in what can only be described as a terrorist atrocity.

I also note that despite Daily Mail and Sun front pages suggesting that he was mentally ill that mental ill-health played no part whatsoever in his defence during the trial.

I'm aware of that.....but as with The Nobel Peace Prize, The Oscars etc your gonna have to pick up the award and claim a portion of the glory in his stead, it's a tough job 'n' all that.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I also note that despite Daily Mail and Sun front pages suggesting that he was mentally ill that mental ill-health played no part whatsoever in his defence during the trial.

LOL... of course you noted it.


Anyway...

Labour win in 74.. Undemocratic or not?

I've answered that already. Where it was appropriate.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I've answered that already.

Not specifically..  Despite your claim that you did.

LOL.

You just refuse to answer.

Undemocratic - Yes or no?

No I have answered: clearly and explicitly.

You just choose not to accept the fact. Nothing I can do about that and answering again will make no difference whatsoever.

And bringing it up, twice, on this thread is well sad.

The obvious parallel is Lee Rigby. That was described as a terrorist attack and front page news, there Cobra meetings.

I think the sentencing of Thomas Mair made page 30 of the Daily Mail

the blue wall/ ceiling and artex combo is enough cause for locking up, IMO.

Hugh Watt wrote:

The obvious parallel is Lee Rigby. That was described as a terrorist attack and front page news, there Cobra meetings.

I think the sentencing of Thomas Mair made page 30 of the Daily Mail

Your point being?

You might be mortified to discover that the murders by Stephen Port of potentially 58 victims manages to squeeze in on page 48 in the Mail.

It's the Mail for Christs sake! You come over all sanctimonious as if shocked by its lack of interest. The Mail wants to 'big up' the Autumn Statement, not a murder by a neo nazi or multiple murders of homosexuals.

And in the interests of balance, the Daily Mirror's headline is about the Crewe Alexandra paedophile and yet another player coming out.

The point is, why isn't Jo Cox's murder being treated as a terrorist attack.

Because she was killed by an individual,  not a group.

pepsipete wrote:

Because she was killed by an individual,  not a group.

Don't think that makes any difference Pete, terrorists often work alone.

pepsipete wrote:

Because she was killed by an individual,  not a group.

Rigby was murdered by 2 people. Not a group, they might have had links to terrorist group but Mair had links to the EDL and nobody is claiming they murdered Cox.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Hugh Watt wrote:

The obvious parallel is Lee Rigby. That was described as a terrorist attack and front page news, there Cobra meetings.

I think the sentencing of Thomas Mair made page 30 of the Daily Mail

Your point being?

You might be mortified to discover that the murders by Stephen Port of potentially 58 victims manages to squeeze in on page 48 in the Mail.

It's the Mail for Christs sake! You come over all sanctimonious as if shocked by its lack of interest. The Mail wants to 'big up' the Autumn Statement, not a murder by a neo nazi or multiple murders of homosexuals.

And in the interests of balance, the Daily Mirror's headline is about the Crewe Alexandra paedophile and yet another player coming out.

Its the murder of a public figure. A serving MP, hardly coming "over all sanctimonious" believing that its really quite a big deal.

Do you not think so?

As far as I recall the murder of Jo Cox was front page news on every paper. The same as Lee Rigby.


But you then compare the sentencing of Mair to the slaughtering of Rigby. That's a different matter all together.

How so?

Lee Rigby and Jo Cox both were front page news.

You then appear to criticise the Mail because the Mair sentence was not front page.

But neither was the Adebolajo and Adebolwale sentences. That was on page seven. The front pages were about the Apollo roof collapsing in London.

There's some difference between page 7 and page 30. My point is that both were acts of terrorism, why is Mair not being treated as a terrorist?

I'm not even sure what you're getting wound up about?

I get irritated by half truths and untruths which both leave and remain seem fond of relaying to the great unwashed.
The leaves £350 billion claim being a case in point. But then again we've been lied to for 40 years. It was to be a common trading market not a European superstate.
Your Mair claim re the Mail was a half truth. Other newspapers didn't carry it on the front page either including the Mirror.
It's this constant misuse of (non)facts to suit the argument that gets my goat.

Other Newspapers somehow managed to report it without trying to blame immigrants.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]