6 coppers to take him down or 1 member of the public with his bike? 
 

 

 

Seems to be if the authorities are certain it's a terrorist attack or done in the name of something they will say so

And if they're not they won't 

 

5 minutes ago, Zico said:

Seems to be if the authorities are certain it's a terrorist attack or done in the name of something they will say so

And if they're not they won't 

Also depends on the age of the suspect.

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

That is right.

Hence the murders were treated as a criminal case.

Yet they found ricin and terrorist materials for which he was charged under separate laws, pertinent to the evidence.

It is those findings that weren't revealed straight away: things which other similar, successful searches elsewhere have been.

As I said before, Starmer has now referred to it as terrorism, which doesn't look good in that context.

Whether it was or wasn't terrorism isn't the main issue anyway; it is simply the questions over why this case appears to have been handled differently to other events.

You'll never get concensus between lawyers (nor economists etc) but it isn't the odd one saying the official reasons are wrong. There are plenty.

So you are agreeing there are differing legal opinions on what could be said. The CPS has to take the most cautious approach, if they did not and as a result the cunt was able to claim a fair trial had been denied and he walked what would the reaction be then ? All the people moaning not enough info was given would be the ones shouting loudest. 

10 hours ago, kent_white said:

Fucking hell. Can you imagine being an adult and coming to that conclusion? 🤣

So if I've got this straight. Keir Starmer intentionally misled the public into thinking the murderer was an innocent schoolboy, because he knew that it would provoke riots that would flush out his political opposition, which meant he could then subsequently imprison them? 

Dickheads like this need calling out. They're dangerous.

 

 

Call out all you want. He is as entitled to his beliefs as you are to yours. Free speech.

As we all know, social media has given plenty of nutjobs a platform.

7 hours ago, Zico said:

yeah, that's what i thought

it's hard to connect the dots sometimes

but a lot of people are shouting "keir starmer cover up" and a lot of people seem to believe it

 

This is the important bit. Grist to the mill.

6 hours ago, royal white said:

America seem to be cracking on with deportations yet an immigration lawyer over here estimates it could take 50-75 years to clear our lot 🤦🏻

 

 

They don't have the archaic/defunct ECHR to contend with.

More evidence it needs fucking off.

2 hours ago, Zico said:

Seems to be if the authorities are certain it's a terrorist attack or done in the name of something they will say so

And if they're not they won't 

 

If only it were that simple. The 'mental' diagnosis has been used a few times to deflect in my opinion. 

Time for a dashcam behind my steering wheel.

11 hours ago, Winchester White said:

What difference does or did it make?  I don't understand this yearning to have known stuff beforehand.  I thought stuff awaiting trial was always kept under wraps but maybe you know different. Maybe his age was a factor, dunno but I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it.

 

If it made no difference then they would be happy to reveal information. 

Clearly, there are reasons why certain details can't be. We understand that.

Under the 1981 act that governs all this; the authorities and media will work together to ensure that breaches don't occur- why Robinson is now locked up.

On the other hand, information has always been made available to the public. Simply part of our legal system.

Stops a vacuum being created, and any accusations of bias, cover up, etc etc.

Also helps to show that action has and is being taken. 

May even help jog the memory of potential witnesses- ones that might not even realise that they are.

As we now know, such information wasn't made public. 

One article explained that the prosecution were always going to use a particular fact in their case, and revealing it wouldn't have changed that. Defence team likewise. It was a fact, not circumstantial etc.

At such a time of clear public anger, it would make sense to publish what could be.

The accusation is that this wasn't done. There are also enough voices from senior legal and security officials to suggest this is the case.

Whether there was or wasn't any cover up, or just simply a mis-judgement, who knows; but it is arguably too late. 

As we have seen before the last election, once convinced of something, the electorate will stick with it.The PM has now described it as a new form of terrorism- contrary to the earlier statements and it is now a problem for him.

Edited January 25, 20251 yr by Tonge moor green jacket

12 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

If it made no difference then they would be happy to reveal information. 

Clearly, there are reasons why certain details can't be. We understand that.

Under the 1981 act that governs all this; the authorities and media will work together to ensure that breaches don't occur- why Robinson is now locked up.

On the other hand, information has always been made available to the public. Simply part of our legal system.

Stops a vacuum being created, and any accusations of bias, cover up, etc etc.

Also helps to show that action has and is being taken. 

May even help jog the memory of potential witnesses- ones that might not even realise that they are.

As we now know, such information wasn't made public. 

One article explained that the prosecution were always going to use a particular fact in their case, and revealing it wouldn't have changed that. Defence team likewise. It was a fact, not circumstantial etc.

At such a time of clear public anger, it would make sense to publish what could be.

The accusation is that this wasn't done. There are also enough voices from senior legal and security officials to suggest this is the case.

Whether there was or wasn't any cover up, or just simply a mis-judgement, who knows; but it is arguably too late. 

As we have seen before the last election, once convinced of something, the electorate will stick with it.The PM has now described it as a new form of terrorism- contrary to the earlier statements and it is now a problem for him.

Can you imagine the carnage if folk heard he had an Al-Qaeda handbook? Moronic thugs were already torching asylum seeker hotels and going for Mosques without any evidence, fck knows what would have happened if they had that to clutch at. 

All the info about previous reports to Prevent; his dad not reporting the school attempt; and the handbook takes time to release. It all has to be released as part of the whole story. As the evidence behind the handbook shows that he wasn't an Islamist, rather a psychopath obsessed by extreme violence and other forms of terrorism. If they had told everyone the latter without the wider context, then that would have only made things worse. 

Investigations take time in our justice system. And as a nation we've become obsessed by social media and instant endorphin hits, we've lost our patience. 

You can talk all you want about "enough voices". The vast majority of legal experts and police officers were happy to let the investigation happen before snippets of information were released. Other than the odd opinion, is there any actual evidence otherwise? 

Our police need more bodies and resources to keep us safe. And people need to stop stirring the pot 30 seconds after events like this. The past few days has also reinforced the importance of coming down hard on anyone rioting in the aftermath of stuff like this. 

29 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Can you imagine the carnage if folk heard he had an Al-Qaeda handbook? Moronic thugs were already torching asylum seeker hotels and going for Mosques without any evidence, fck knows what would have happened if they had that to clutch at. 

All the info about previous reports to Prevent; his dad not reporting the school attempt; and the handbook takes time to release. It all has to be released as part of the whole story. As the evidence behind the handbook shows that he wasn't an Islamist, rather a psychopath obsessed by extreme violence and other forms of terrorism. If they had told everyone the latter without the wider context, then that would have only made things worse. 

Investigations take time in our justice system. And as a nation we've become obsessed by social media and instant endorphin hits, we've lost our patience. 

You can talk all you want about "enough voices". The vast majority of legal experts and police officers were happy to let the investigation happen before snippets of information were released. Other than the odd opinion, is there any actual evidence otherwise? 

Our police need more bodies and resources to keep us safe. And people need to stop stirring the pot 30 seconds after events like this. The past few days has also reinforced the importance of coming down hard on anyone rioting in the aftermath of stuff like this. 

Frightening that it could have been a lot worse if they had known the truth 

2 hours ago, royal white said:

Frightening that it could have been a lot worse if they had known the truth 

More selective highlighting 

Did the police say he was an Islamist? 

This young lad Leo Ross stabbed to death In Birmingham. Any social media chatter about the identity of the 14yo with a string of assaults to his name?

Another Welsh Christian or one of the usual perpetrators of knife crime?

 

The big man is in charge.

You peado and rape-gang defenders take note.

You fucking cowardly filth.

On 21/01/2025 at 18:54, Not in Crawley said:

It's also the most reductionist and patronising view of the working class of the UK I've read in a while.

Coward.

5 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

More selective highlighting 

Did the police say he was an Islamist? 

Dirty peado nonce.

If you were near my kids I'd end you.

Shitbag vermin.

8 hours ago, royal white said:

Frightening that it could have been a lot worse if they had known the truth 

Shhhhh

This cunt wants to play Violins for Axel.

7 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

More selective highlighting 

Did the police say he was an Islamist? 

You asked a question, I gave an answer 🤷🏻

35 minutes ago, royal white said:

You asked a question, I gave an answer 🤷🏻

True 

Think I assumed you were being sarcastic 😄

Guess it proves the point of not releasing details without the full story 

3 hours ago, PatrickBateman said:

Dirty peado nonce.

If you were near my kids I'd end you.

Shitbag vermin.

You need help. 

Someone’s had a bad night at the casino

The mods going to do anything about this wanker ?

Or is it just harmless banter.

Absolute cunt 

All over twitter,that cunt who killed them kids in Southport has already had a good pasting 

Just now, 1969 said:

All over twitter,that cunt who killed them kids in Southport has already had a good pasting 

Already debunked.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-viral-voice-note-claims-34554870

10 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Already debunked.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-viral-voice-note-claims-34554870

Shame