They had bellends on social media organising attacks on hotels housing 'boat people/muslims' & 'mosques'. And you want to know why the isis recruit manual was kept out of public perception? Seriously?Minging little rat! We should not be spending money keeping him alive, we should just shoot him in the head (if you want to be humane) and have done with it.
Can’t be arsed arguing the toss, and people have a right to their own opinions, but I think people hide behind the notion that discussing a terror attack could jeopardise a court hearing, similar to how some people hide behind GDPR and ‘data protection’ when it comes to sharing information.
They act like you aren’t allowed to share any information full stop when that’s really not the case; there are loads of circumstances in which data protection NEEDS to be ignored!
They also eventually released the information of him possessing an Islamic terror handbook etc well ahead of the scheduled trial, but long after the terror attack.
They did this because reporting what he has been charged with would have absolutely no chance of destabilising a trial. So I’m wondering what information they reckon actually needed to be withheld, when it was inevitably disclosed well ahead of the trial anyway?