Current Affairs Stabbing incident in Southport

[Dymak]

It's a serious question, to which your answer should be "I don't know".

That really shouldn’t be the answer. The actual answer is the items referred to were found at the perpetrator’s home.

 

[davek]

Bizarre this now. People still being told it wasn't a terrorist incident to save the blushes of top coppers and the government - and they're still getting the benefit of the doubt.

They made a decision that can be sort of understood in the context of what was happening, but the pretence must surely stop now. And that's not to aid the loonies on the far right and neo-fascists, it's just logic asserting itself. The government and police need to cut their losses and just announce this as a terrorist incident. And it's not to deny that the lad in question is obviously not well.

I feel sorry for the Merseyside Chief Constable: sent out to the media to answer questions her bosses and the government wont touch for fear of criticism and having to make distinctions between whether someone is a terrorist or a terrorist but not committing a terrorist attack at a given moment.

I suspect this one will be a nightmare to sort out. All the while the Tommy Robinsons' of this world will be gleefully rubbing their grubby hands at the stupidity of the authorities.

 

[LostLegend]

Just a note on this:

The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

The specific actions included are:

• serious violence against a person;
• serious damage to property;
• endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
• creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
• action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.

Action includes action outside the United Kingdom.

It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism offence a person doesn't actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.

From the CPS website here:

Terrorism | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

They have to be very careful when charging this type of offence, especially given the gravity of this particular offence.

The thing to remember is, not every crime a terrorist commits is terrorism.

The CPS have to prove the intention was to further an ideological, political or religious goal.

Having the manual and chemical is a terror offence, but we don’t yet know if he aligned himself with Al Qaeda ideologically or whether he was just using their manual (easily found online) for his own purposes.
So as to whether the stabbing are a terrorist attack is a bit up in the air and the CPS have to get it right and not give him an opportunity of defence in that case.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

Just a note on this:

The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

The specific actions included are:

• serious violence against a person;
• serious damage to property;
• endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
• creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
• action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.

Action includes action outside the United Kingdom.

It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism offence a person doesn't actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.

From the CPS website here:

Terrorism | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

They have to be very careful when charging this type of offence, especially given the gravity of this particular offence.

The thing to remember is, not every crime a terrorist commits is terrorism.

The CPS have to prove the intention was to further an ideological, political or religious goal.

Having the manual and chemical is a terror offence, but we don’t yet know if he aligned himself with Al Qaeda ideologically or whether he was just using their manual (easily found online) for his own purposes.
So as to whether the stabbing are a terrorist attack is a bit up in the air and the CPS have to get it right and not give him an opportunity of defence in that case.

A helpful and well informed post.

 

[Harryflashman]

Just a note on this:

The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

The specific actions included are:

• serious violence against a person;
• serious damage to property;
• endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
• creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
• action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.

Action includes action outside the United Kingdom.

It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism offence a person doesn't actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.

From the CPS website here:

Terrorism | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

They have to be very careful when charging this type of offence, especially given the gravity of this particular offence.

The thing to remember is, not every crime a terrorist commits is terrorism.

The CPS have to prove the intention was to further an ideological, political or religious goal.

Having the manual and chemical is a terror offence, but we don’t yet know if he aligned himself with Al Qaeda ideologically or whether he was just using their manual (easily found online) for his own purposes.
So as to whether the stabbing are a terrorist attack is a bit up in the air and the CPS have to get it right and not give him an opportunity of defence in that case.

I honestly have no idea if he’s radicalised and no point in getting into that really but the manual is actually , I think , an American analysis of AQ terrorist tactics etc . Which I believe @PhilM said earlier , so necessarily making him a sympathiser because his got it and of course not meaning he isn’t .

Being charged with a terrorist offence I suppose the argument is SYL a terrorist , he’s been charged under terrorism legislation. Does that automatically mean he’s a terrorist ? I suspect opinions on both accused could vary significantly from person to person .

We have no choice here but to wait for the trial , these days with 24 news and insane social media speculation nobody seems to want to do it but it’s been his our justice system has operated for centuries .

 

[Lapeno77]

A helpful and well informed post.

Indeed, it should be deleted immediately before common sense takes root in this place.

 

[neil999]

I am looking at the facts; I’m not making anything up, and the facts overwhelmingly point to a terror attack, and I don’t need permission from the CPS to come to that conclusion.

How handy...we don't need to bother courts now

 

[Dymak]

How handy...we don't need to bother courts now

Having looked at in more detail, the CPS are not actually denying that he is a terrorist. In fact, they are charging him as ‘a person committing to or preparing an act of terrorism’.

I agree with the CPS based on the avalanche of evidence that is available.

 

[LostLegend]

Bizarrely, as an aside, if he’d have got his hands on a gun instead of knife, or managed to utilise the ricin in any capacity, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It would be considered terrorism regardless of his motive.

In short, terrorism legislation is strange. Probably owed to how new it is in comparison to the rest of the laws in use.

 

[neil999]

Having looked at in more detail, the CPS are not actually denying that he is a terrorist. In fact, they are charging him as ‘a person committing to or preparing an act of terrorism’.

I agree with the CPS based on the avalanche of evidence that is available.

OK...shall we still have the trial or not?

 

[Shevin Keedy]

Having looked at in more detail, the CPS are not actually denying that he is a terrorist. In fact, they are charging him as ‘a person committing to or preparing an act of terrorism’.

I agree with the CPS based on the avalanche of evidence that is available.

You know that charge is separate from the stabbing incident don't you?

Or are you just going to be obtuse?

 

[Dymak]

You know that charge is separate from the stabbing incident don't you?

Or are you just going to be obtuse?

Yes, I know. But he’s being charged as ‘a person committing to or preparing an act of terrorism’.

To me, this is actually the CPS acknowledging the fact that they suspect him to be a terrorist without having the ability to link his terrorism to the Southport attack itself. This is actually their way of getting around some ridiculous legal technicality.

My understanding is that it’s not the possession of the document that is illegal, but possession of the document becomes illegal if it is: ‘likely to be useful to a person committing to or preparing an act of terrorism’.

 

[Dymak]

OK...shall we still have the trial or not?

Have the trial.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Well Peter Reid surely showed yesterday that he's just a sad old scumbag.

 

[Dymak]

I guess the charges and the progression to trial indicate that the CPS reject any claim of diminished responsibility on mental health grounds? My understanding is that the perpetrator is on remand, and has not been sectioned?