Slaughtering women & girls is *not* terrorism, according to the police

If incels aren't considered a terror group then are their recruiting methods treated as radicalisation?
IDK what it takes. They recruit disaffected men, they write manifestos, they want to make women utterly subordinate, they particularly hate feminists, and they support using violence to get what they want.

I don't really understand the insistence of taking words for something quite specific, and claiming them for another use because it's seen as somehow giving them more gravitas.

Terrorism Is violence against civilians in order to pressure governments and states into certain political policies. Which is to say, the idea is that in order to stop the violence, the state adjusts it's policies, or the population pressures the state into that in some way. That's what it means.

Violence against women might be terrifying, that doesn't' make it terrorism. There's already been far too much pressure applied to the word in order to manipulate politics, there really is no need to screw around with it further.

The problem is that this is exactly the job the police don't do. The Home Office has been spinning a variety of lines badly - with terrible consequences.
The CPS want a case that will lead to conviction, they couldn't care less what charges, plea bargains and watered down charges in return for guilty pleas are part of the furniture.
Many possible explanations will not be allowed to be publicised to protect Yvete Cooper's political sensibilities.

We. Do. Not. Yet. Know. Anything.

End of.

I don't really understand the insistence of taking words for something quite specific, and claiming them for another use because it's seen as somehow giving them more gravitas.

Terrorism Is violence against civilians in order to pressure governments and states into certain political policies. Which is to say, the idea is that in order to stop the violence, the state adjusts it's policies, or the population pressures the state into that in some way. That's what it means.

Violence against women might be terrifying, that doesn't' make it terrorism. There's already been far too much pressure applied to the word in order to manipulate politics, there really is no need to screw around with it further.

As has been said over and over again, terrorism is about acts of violence to in some way try and undermine Government and it policies.

It is about 2 sets of male ideology squaring up against each other.

And again has been said, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter eg Mandela.

Violence against women is not about state politicies. It isn't about conflicting male politics. It is about ALL MEN. It is about the dominant sex group, men feeling entitled to be violent against women.

So there are no "good" men standing up against "bad" men (as in terrorism). It is about the fact that in all countries, male violence against women is treated as normal.

And this is evident, not because of what does or doesn't happen in courts, but because society, ie not just Governments, do not care enough to do anything about it.

Every man who has committed an act of violence against a woman is someone's son, someone's brother, someone's grandson, someone boyfriend, someone's husband. ie society is sheilding these men from facing consequences of their violence, because society does not make these men and boys feel shamed to have behavee like this.

ie society condones these men.

Terrorism is absolutely irrelevant.

The issue is when is society, ie people as a whole, going to make it impossible for any man to have a place in society because he is known to be violent against women.

Let's not forget a child rapist is being allowed to take part in the Olympics.

I think we should let the police do tHeir job and investigate the cause. We don’t know whether its due to mental illness, mysogyny or something else at this stage.

I don't really understand the insistence of taking words for something quite specific, and claiming them for another use because it's seen as somehow giving them more gravitas.

Terrorism Is violence against civilians in order to pressure governments and states into certain political policies. Which is to say, the idea is that in order to stop the violence, the state adjusts it's policies, or the population pressures the state into that in some way. That's what it means.

Violence against women might be terrifying, that doesn't' make it terrorism. There's already been far too much pressure applied to the word in order to manipulate politics, there really is no need to screw around with it further.

I don’t understand why the sex of victims is not an aggravating factor of violent crimes in the same way as ethnicity or religious affiliation or sexuality can be.

I really dislike this.

By saying that ALL men benefit from an attack like this, includes the fathers and other male family members of those murdered.

Well, what is it then, when women & girls are targeted because they are specifically girls & women ?

Just your common or garden slaughter?

I'm so so angry about the way in which the regular murder of girls & women because they are female is not seen as political, or a terrorist action.

I really dislike this.

By saying that ALL men benefit from an attack like this, includes the fathers and other male family members of those murdered.

Please note I think it is much too early to comment on the horrifying events in Southport.

Absolutely NO WAY should we allow male violence against women to be caught up in the inter conflict of political and religious ideology.

MALE violence is universal.

It should not be downplayed into men trying to impose their politics or religion on other groups.

It absolutely should be made clear that if a man or boy targets women or girls it is femicide.

The problem in this country is women aren't even afforded the legal status of having violence against women considered a hate crime.

So whilst i agree with OP's sense of anger etc., I for one am NOT going to let men decide is it this, is it that.

If, after FACTS ARE KNOWN, is it clear that the class was targetted because they were all girls then that is a different matter.

(Just one comment about what happened in Southport, the media are going out of their way NOT to say girls but to say children, whereas local people all talk about girls.)

Despite public hand ringing, and isn't it awful, the country as a whole, whether polticians and members of the public do not want to talk about how normal most people seem to think it is that men are violent against women.

And much as I think the femicide report has been a good public campaign, what we really need is a public list of the male perpetrators.

Otherwise it is all just hand wringing, and how sad, she was such a lovely woman / girl.

We need to expose and make the public accept that unless and until men start respecting women and not thinking there will be no consequences for violence against women, it will never stop.

So please, dont lets get dragged into men's concepts about what is or is not the worst sort of crime.

We need to be absolutely clear, in what ever circumstance, that male violence against women is a world wide epidemic, and in too many cultures accepted as being acceptable.

So men should not be able to hide behind contested concepts of terrorism, and the government and police should not be able to conceal this society wide issue, which is male violence against women.

Based on the very basic concept that the male sex is superior and has more rights than women.