Barnsley fan jailed

There is a positive from allowing such posts though in that it enables others to counter the posts, which hopefully informs and educates the people reading the thread.

 

Out of interest, is there some science based theory around 'the look in his eyes'?

Maybe we can start convicting people based on 'the look in their eyes'.

 

You say racist idiot. Nothing could be further from the truth. Misguided I'd agree as I dont see it as a terrorist incident, most have pointed that out. I'm guessing the fact that reading terrorist propaganda is seen as a terrorist act. Has help make him come to that conclusion. (Not racist in the slightest.)
Some have challenged him on that. With some reasoned debate. You chose not to because you have decided you are judge an jury and admin should follow your comment. I can think of many instances. Where some of the posters on here have made comments beyond the pale. About others on here and the club. Should they be banned. I think yes on occasion, but I don't speak for the entire BBS members.
I got involved in one debate with admin direct on what I thought got way out of hand because the person got tied up in knots by many on here. And asked for him and the thread to be removed for his benefit. It got removed and I haven't seen him post since.
Perhaps you could respond to these people you call racists. Not in a bullying way but in a way it becomes constructive. Not destructive. No winners.
Why do I say he's not a racist. I have never, in
his entire life since coming out of his mother's womb known him to make what people would say is a racist comment or held such thoughts. In fact quite the opposite. He would challenge anyone he thought did.
I will explain to him why I thought he'd got the situation wrong on this subject, And we will have a reasonable debate in person. What I won't do is air that conversation on here.

 

Just read a lot of this thread and if was a fair old pile on, top marks to you for explaining the OP is far from racist and should never have been called one. Just shows that some people thrive on presumption. Well said HF I am sure Kiz(whoever he his) will appreciate your words.

 

Because there is no evidence at this time that it was terrorist related. To be terrorism, it needs a political aim, agenda or manifesto. So, the riots/protests we saw in August could be counted as terrorism (they had threats of violence to further the political aim of changing the UK's asylum policy and deporting "illegal" immigrants), but the original attack in Southport wouldn't as it was a kid on a murderous rampage.

The two terrorism-related crimes were *in addition* to the murders. Its like someone driving down the road and running someone over and killing them and being drug/drink tested and being perfectly sober but drugs found in a search of their car. They would be arrested for dangerous driving and for possession, but they wouldn't be drug-driving. Owning the Al Qaeda manual (which has been on sale at Waterstones and Amazon) is not, in itself, an offence - although Nottingham University did see some lecturers arrested for owning it as party of their research (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/op...ions-of-islamophobia-nottingham-university-m/). The Al Qaeda manual is recommended reading on most courses researching terrorism - although it is unlikely that young Axel was using it in that way.

 

"Terrorist documents", such as the Al Qaeda manual are recommended reading on many university and higher education courses that study geopolitics and terrorism around the world. In addition, any senior police offices and "spies" working in counter terrorism will have read or own a copy. I'd be very surprised if there weren't multiple copies in the Home Office and Met Police. By studying these manuals you can learn of potential methods of attack and work to mitigate them.

 

Far more people have been killed by Christian terrorists in this country than Islamic. Getting on for 100x more IIRC.

 

The thing is though, the post that stoked the recent debate displays about 5 examples of racial prejudice. From the comments about mug shots, to the assumption of terrorism due to the suspect's religious views.

I'm sick of it, and I'll continue to challenge racial prejudice. If that makes me a bad guy, then so be it.

 

Your views are welcomed. doesn't mean we have to agree.
Where have I said its wrong to challenge racial prejudice. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, after reading the content. I had a word with exile in the main in who he DEMANDS of admin should ban. And I will also make my own mind up on the subject. It doesn't make you or me right or wrong. Only the perception. As we see it.
Some people for example think stopping the boats is racist. Should we all agree with em. I've spoken to people who's fear is that terrorists will be among em. No issue with folk seeking asylum or a better life. Not racist but made to feel so.
Some will say Asian grooming gangs is a racist view. it's not a term I like to hear. But grooming gangs are predominantly from that community. And widely reported as that via the media. Is it racist. I prefer to think not. You may see it differently.
People tend to seek out racism for whatever reason. when actually others may not.
One poster on here tried to belittle me by challenging everything I said on morality. My views never changed. But he tried to make out he was right no matter what. And belittle me in the process. He failed miserably. Then his cohorts joined in. And they were challenged and they failed. Bullies. Who need standing up to. I have many private messages on the subject as those who agree don't want to get involved. Sick and tired of their sanctimonious bigoted views. Should we ban em.
Supertyke thinks I hate him. I don't hate anyone. Their are a few who would not wish to befriend. And he's not top of the list. I challenge him when I disagree. And like many of his posts when I agree. Should I stand back when I know more on the subject personally and not rumour.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65174096.amp

An article posted last year and verified by the Home Office gives evidence that almost 40% of Grooming Gangs are white. Whilst just 14% of them are Asian.

Granted, that article is a year old but I'd be staggered if the figures have changed.

So, to counter your point regarding "grooming gangs predominantly from that community" is factually incorrect.

With regards to Small Boats - I agree they should he stopped. Every loss of life is tragic. But the fact remains that there is no legal routes for these asylum seekers to come to Britain - thanks to Brexit. So they have to take a chance with their lives to hopefully improve their situation for themselves and their families. There is no other option for them, and it shows the desperation and hopelessness they must feel and face.

As for Admin banning racists? Why not? You've mentioned that one person's racism is another person's opinion or viewpoint. Whilst that may be so in certain cases, in others, its pretty obvious who the racists are.

 

I've not said racists should not be banned. But I'll choose who I think are. Not you or anyone else. And in this case. I know the lad better than you ever will. He may be a bit young and misguided on this subject. But racist, your perogative as is mine.

 

The problem isn't with "Stop the boats". Every single person wants the small boats stopped. Nobody should be risking their life on an oversized lilo to cross the Channel. Its dangerous and people are dying.

The problem is that people - including many senior politicians - saying "Stop the boats" actually mean "Stop Asylum seekers", which for supposed Christians (looking at you Theresa May and your mates) is supposedly against their principles (Love thy neighbour, the Good Samaritan, etc). 20 years ago, the ports were more lax in their checks and people sneaked in onboard lorries. This was still dangerous but much safer than crossing the Channel. But we tightened up on that method. We also tightened up at airports, so airlines get fined if they fly someone here who claims asylum (although most actual illegal immigrants come in this way). We also stopped people claiming asylum at embassies, so the only way to claim is to be physically within the UK. And the only way left to enter the UK is on a small boat.

The "Small Boat Problem" is a problem entirely manufactured by Conservative Politicians so that they can win votes by waving the scary immigrant bogeyman every time an election comes up. We could stop them tomorrow by opening a processing centre in Calais - but the outcry from the papers would be too much for any politician to face. The same papers who want us to stop the boats but won't let us take any approach that would work.

 

I very much doubt this bloke was studying terrorism for a higher education course. He's also been charged with production of ricin. Maybe he made that just for good measure.

There should be an independent enquiry into the whole thing. Just really a sad state feel for those parents who lost there kids can't imagine what they have gone through since this. The lads a absolute horrible lovely person who doesn't deserve to breath the same air as the rest of us.

 

No, he probably wasn't. But if he was in America he'd have taken a gun to school and killed a bunch of people (probably including his parents) - like they get every week. None of them are ever "terrorists". This lad wasn't. He was an evil and probably needed psychiatric intervention, but he was just a nutter who wanted to kill people.

 

There needs to be a independent investigation into it all. The lad was referred to the government's counter terrorism program 3 times and then a search of his home found he had ricin and a Al queda Manual could be for education purposes like you say but I definitely think the independent enquiry they are having is needed.

 

He was referred 3 times, and 3 times they found he was not suitable for Prevent because he did not display sympathies for any terrorist organization. There is going to be an independent inquiry, but it will likely find that reducing funding to psychiatric and mental health services over the last few decades was a significant contributing factor. As with the grooming gangs, cutting police and social services budgets might save some money, but there will eventually be a long term cost that isn't financial.

 

I've no idea what lad you're on about, I'm just responding to a post I've read on here which was full of racial prejudice.

I see you ignored my comments about the statistics regarding the grooming gangs and the small boats.

 

The lads who do the school shootings are generally white young men from pretty privileged backgrounds.

Thats when it's a mental health issue - for the white lads. When it's someone who's a bit dark, it's terrorism.

 

At the very least even after Fonzie showing you statistics that prove this wrong, if you don't come out and accept your view of this subject is wrong based on racial stereotypes surely you can see why people would have a problem with that?

 

I'll respond. Re grooming gangs they are most predominantly aired. I said I didn't agree as to the term used. Maybe your stats are right. But not given the same publicity. Of which I agree.
Re the small boats. Nowt to be said I don't disagree with you.
As for questions maybe you'd answer mine.
I'm going off cos we obviously don't agree on some elements which is what debate is all about. and that's not going to change for either of us.