Newcastle mass murder plot - no terrorism ere mate

[TW]Fox;28380679 said:
That he was mentally unstable isn't an 'excuse', its an 'explanation'. It doesn't make it ok, it doesn't stop it being abhorrent and it doesn't absolve him from guilt.

Why do people think that because mental health issues are cited they are cited as an excuse, rather than as a way of explaining the motives? :confused:

If anything it highlights why we must take mental health seriously.
Click to expand...

Agenda. People with agendas likely to try simplifying or twisting such things.
 
[TW]Fox;28380679 said:
That he was mentally unstable isn't an 'excuse', its an 'explanation'. It doesn't make it ok, it doesn't stop it being abhorrent and it doesn't absolve him from guilt.

Why do people think that because mental health issues are cited they are cited as an excuse, rather than as a way of explaining the motives? :confused:

If anything it highlights why we must take mental health seriously.
Click to expand...

it would depend in what way hes mentally ill (if he is at all, people often lump oh his actions are crazy so he must be mentally ill when theyre perfectly sane just want to kill people) for instance if hes having a psychotic episode its perfectly reasonable that he would have no concept that what he was about to do/doing was wrong at all.

the only time mental health is an excuse/defense is when it removed their ability to tell right from wrong or their ability to comprehend reality is so far gone they cant be determined to be responsible for the actions they take (if they are having a delusion that they are in a war or something for instance)


but these things are actually very rare and unlikely to be the case here, its much more likely hes an angry and stressed teen but perfectly capable of understanding right and wrong
 
[TW]Fox;28380679 said:
That he was mentally unstable isn't an 'excuse', its an 'explanation'. It doesn't make it ok, it doesn't stop it being abhorrent and it doesn't absolve him from guilt.

Why do people think that because mental health issues are cited they are cited as an excuse, rather than as a way of explaining the motives? :confused:

If anything it highlights why we must take mental health seriously.
Click to expand...

Isn't an excuse with regard to who's standards?

According to the Mental Health Act 2007.

Section 1(2) Mental Health Act 2007 amended section 1(2) Mental Health Act 1983 and defines mental disorder as "any disorder or disability of the mind."
Click to expand...

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/mentally_disordered_offenders/

So it depends on who's definition you are subscribing too.
 
[TW]Fox;28380679 said:
If anything it highlights why we must take mental health seriously.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

My mums best-friend was murdered as a result of a mentally ill partner not being taken seriously. He'd had no history at all of violence but of depression and paranoia. He was convinced she was going to leave him for another man.
 
Tefal said:
it's a random Muslim who is annoyed that the main reason Muslim are in the news is because of terrorist reasons.

So he has latched on to a a story that he thinks shows a disparity in reporting and is jumping around in excitement at being able to go "look see its not just Muslims who want to kill groups of people" as if this is some sort of victory.
Click to expand...

Well that's all good then.
 
Dis86 said:
Again, and as Tefal says, read the thread. It's been text-book defined several times.

DERP
Click to expand...

Stick to reading the Daily Mail, using predefined, biased definitions to suit your agenda makes you the biggest Derp out there.

i'll leave this here for you. Maybe you will learn something from it but my guess is you won't.

 
badgeruk said:
Brb... going to steal a car as the definition for theft in UK is biased and predefined.
Click to expand...

You don't get charged with theft for stealing a car.

You get charged with "Taking Without Owners Consent" which is where TWOCer comes from
You also get charged with driving without insurance etc
Theft Act 1968
1968 c. 60 Theft, robbery, burglary, etc.Section 12
 
arknor said:
You don't get charged with theft for stealing a car.

You get charged with "Taking Without Owners Consent" which is where TWOCer comes from
You also get charged with driving without insurance etc
Theft Act 1968
1968 c. 60 Theft, robbery, burglary, etc.Section 12
Click to expand...

I didn't really put much thought into my pointless throw away post that for some reason I decided to write.
 
The term now usually refers to a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects.

Oxford English Dictionary
Click to expand...

So no, he wasn't a terrorist.
 
Tefal said:
does that depend if its a joy ride, or if you intend to keep it/sell it?
Click to expand...

just taking it, riding in or amazingly on it
without having the consent of the owner or other lawful authority, he takes any conveyance for his own or another’s use or, knowing that any conveyance has been taken without such authority, drives it or allows himself to be carried in or on it.
Click to expand...

I got charged with it at around 15 years old we didn't even take the car (sierra estate lol) more than about 10ft :P (pushing it around the corner to start it, got disturbed)

Found innocent in court, I've not been in trouble with the police for almost twenty years for the judgemental types.
 
Last edited:
Twirlywoos said:
Stick to reading the Daily Mail, using predefined, biased definitions to suit your agenda makes you the biggest Derp out there.

i'll leave this here for you. Maybe you will learn something from it but my guess is you won't.

Click to expand...

Lol. Aw whatsamatter darling? A little bit butthurt because you were shown up for being incapable of reading the thread when you showed up to try and be clever and profound?
 
I might, just might be able to give the OP a scenario that will allow him to understand the differences in terrorist act as opposed to straight murders.....

I am a Northern Irish Catholic (for clarity this pretty much defines most members of the IRA) I am peeved off at my college and decided to plan a gun and bomb attack on said college. I get rumbled and arrested. Will I be charged under terror offences?

No.

Why?

I am not affiliated to any terrorist organisation. I have not planned my attack on the grounds of political or religious reasons. I have planned my attack purely on the grounds I did not like how I was treated at college.

I'll be charged with planning a mass murder. Once sentenced I cannot apply for political/terrorist status in prison. I will be simply bunged in with the rest of the non-terrorist inmates.

And just for the record, no I'm not planning any sort of college attack nor am I a member of any terrorist organisation!:p
 
zoomee said:
roflmao - usual GD'ers in first I see with their blinkers on.

The definition of terrorism is highly debatable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

But lets make one thing clear - its doesn't necessarily have to be to be classed a political motive to be terrorism.



Guess its not terrorism as you can identify yourselves with the perpetrator? Only Tefal so far has condemned this criminal act, the rest of you have been too busy trying to find holes in the original post lol.

Guy plans on mass indiscriminate murder with bombs and other horrific weapons and its still not seen as terrorism as its just a 'caucasian teenager with mental problems'.
Click to expand...


The fundamental definition which is an act committed on a government or it's peoples in an attempt to cause political change(in simple terms) is still the only thing that CAN be classed as a terrorist act. But depending on who that specific type of attack is made by and against, some people won't believe it is a terrorist act. This is not the same argument as saying a guy stole a bike, some people might believe it's a terrorist act, some people won't. It's a SPECIFIC type of attack that can be deemed a terrorist act, not any type of attack.

A 'simple' mass murder in which the perpetrator has absolutely no political agenda isn't a terrorist act by definition.

For instance Palestine commits acts against Israel which it believes is justified defence and Israel believe are terrorist acts, in both cases the act is a group of people attacking Israel for a political reason. The question is if an attack becomes justified it becomes defence or a reasonable attempt to stop a nation. By comparison basically the entire world got together and thumped Germany, twice, and both times it was attacks with an intent of political change.

That act is the same but it may become justifiable by everyone or by certain people in some circumstances. As above by your definition some people can decide stealing a bike is a terrorist act.

One thing doesn't imply the other, a terrorist act HAS to have a political motive, a political motive doesn't mean it will be deemed a terrorist attack.

He had no political motive, it CAN'T be a terrorist attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom