If you're looking in the centre of the background it's a statue of 'the good Samaritan'
It was more a commentary on you will see what you want to see
But thanks for the factual information! They are few and far between in this thread
Last edited:
If you're looking in the centre of the background it's a statue of 'the good Samaritan'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...e-killing-of-jo-cox-what-it-is-an-act-of-far/
Article mentions three accounts of witnesses also.
Still amazes me how quick people are to affilliate other terrorist activities at the mere mention of the word "Allah hu Akbar" - yet refuse to believe it when the words "Britain First" are provided by multiple eye witnesses.
Anyways - for those who still think Mr Muir had nothing to do with Britain First - here you go - Photo has Dewsbury Town Hall in the background - would you look at that, guess who that is stood in the middle?
Lemme guess - he was just passing and got caught in the moment arazi?
Maybe now might be a good time to come up with some phrases to describe the deniers
BF apologise-rs?
BF sympathisers?
But hey - I'm not gunna stoop to the levels of the known bigots here, jesting aside.
"It should be said that we still don’t know for sure all the details of the attack"
It’s time to call the killing of Jo Cox what it is: 'an act of far-Right terrorism'
So for that reason I cannot oppose the brutal, resonative execution of a fairly major politician and a traitor. Woman or not.
Glad you liked it And thanks for the suggestion I'll have a read of his post now.A good differentiation there, I like it.
Pretty fundamental to the perpetrators motivations, and still recognising the difference between not having personal responsibility for ones actions (mental illness) and having responsibility - even though 'brainwashed'
Though you should read Robocods* post in the ISIS thread (I think?) about the myth of 'radicalisation', it was another thoughtful read
Edit : * Moses was the wrong accreditation
I would have thought that the BF website would have taken that picture down if it really was him within minutes of the attack.
Could be anybody.
Just because you think it doesn't make it reality
Well, it couldn't be me. And I would assume as the affiliate members of Britain First isn't that large, there aren't that many candidates...
I'm not saying it is, but don't you see your own bias? When you immediately call it a photo shop, then when it's shown to be on a legitimate website you come up with another flippant dismissal, can't you even acknowledge the possibility for discussion that this was a politically right wing motivated attack, just as abhorrent as a religiously motivated one? (Which you are happy to endlessly espouse about)
Yes of course it could be, i have never said it couldn't be and i don't think many have said it couldn't be.
Yes of course it could be, i have never said it couldn't be and i don't think many have said it couldn't be.
Glad you liked it And thanks for the suggestion I'll have a read of his post now.
Edited: That's a huuge thread!
I'm just thinking about the guy that has done this. From the photo issued in the press, the one of him sitting on the bench, I would say that he 'doesn't look quite right' and that was the first thing that struck me when I saw him, by that I mean I think he may have a mental health issue. He's a long term volunteer so that puts him on benefits, most likely ESA or similar. He appears to be fully active and physically fit therefore it's quite possible that his need for benefits points to the fact that he does indeed have some kind of mental health issue. Now mix this with being brainwashed (easily led too perhaps) and we have the ingredients for something like this.
I am speculating of course, but I think it's a reasonable speculation (if there's such a thing) and what this gives us is more of what myself/Freakbro touched on (we didn't actually touch, honest!) earlier and makes it all very complicated with all sorts of possible theories, claims, defences, allegations, pleas, outcomes etc.
The Guardian reports "at least two", including Graeme Howard. The Independent and The Mirror report that Clarke Rothwell said the same thing, and since The Guardian mention him by name but don't credit him with the observation I'd assume he's a different person to the "at least 2" they talk of. The BBC just says "Witnesses reported that during the attack he shouted "Britain first" twice." but note the plural: 'witnesses.
Local talk is all about him having had mental health problems in the past, getting help and then cuts meaning the help was lost potentially leading to issues with the state.
How much of that is true is hard to gauge, especially in light of the reported leanings or sympathies or ideologies.
I think it could be useful to know what sort of metal health issues. That go some way to being able to verify the theory of cuts to services.