Liverpool -how do we define terrorism and is it accurate?

[mids2019]

If someone with an ideological reason to hurt innocent citizens had driven the car in Liverpool a different set of laws would apply and the incident would be described as an attack rather than attempted murder.

Should we define terrorism by the scale of the danger someone wishes to inflict or purely by defined motive (religious hatred for example)? For example if someone triggers a nuclear device simply for the desire to murder without any underlying ideology that would not be terrorism but an attack by a knife if there is some evidence of ideological notice would be a terrorist attack.

I noticed on a work training course in vigilance for suspicious activity that perpetrators of potential mass harm were labelled as 'hostile ' rather than terrorists so is terrorism still a debatable term?

In the UK, terrorism is defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 as the use or threat of serious violence against a person or property, aiming to influence the government or intimidate the public, and advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause.

I don’t think we know enough about what happened in Liverpool to define it - but so far it seems the situation might be someone who ended up in the wrong place, and then was on drugs and so reacted badly when under pressure from the crowd. If that is the case, I wouldn’t define it as terrorism - there was no agenda.

An act of terrorism is a politically motivated attack. Attacks can be very deadly and violent without being terrorist attacks. For example, the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooter killed 60 other people for no reason other than to do it. A lot of people died but it wasn't terrorism.

Maybe the definition does need some work but I don't think what happened in Liverpool would fit it.

It seems like some self important, drink and drug fueled man thought the road closures shouldn't apply to him, and tailgated an ambulance through the crowd.

Once there, he was trapped in the agitated crowd and for whatever reason failed to stop.

If he'd had deliberately set out to maim people, he surely have been driving much faster?

It's hard isn't it because it must have been terrifying. The language lends itself to the notion. Terror. Terrorism. Terrifying. It all feels linked.

I think they have the official definition about right, to be fair.

It's interesting that the guy may have just been a reckless idiot. I agree that certainly wouldn't be terrorism.

However the reaction from the PM and the Royal Family in a sense is following terrorist attack playbook in terms of rhetoric. It was even reported overseas.

I wonder if there was just an instant assumption of terrorism by the media?

Yes, that's why the police put out the details of his ethnicity so quickly. They've said that, to prevent certain groups being targeted if there was untrue speculation.

I don’t see why the reactions you’ve mentioned or the fact it was reported overseas means it’s being considered a terrorist attack though?
It was a well publicised, high profile event and a significant number of people were injured.

From my perspective it seemed pretty obvious it wasn’t a terrorist attack. It was an entitled man ignoring the road closures and losing his temper.

I think because most incidents where a car has been driven into a crowd has been linked to terrorism (unless medical incident). This one appears to be down to drugs. But I think media attention, other reaction is because it wasn’t just a random normal day on a high street, it was after a celebratory parade, with I think 1 million supporters, many of them children, lining the streets. The casualties could have been much worse than they were (not making light of those who were hurt, and hope they all make a good recovery). But many people will also be mentally impacted by this (and if any of them had been involved in Hillsborough) that impact will be magnified

Things that happen here get reported overseas. I've seen nothing in the media to make me think that there was ever any assumption about motive.

Seems to be treated as a terrorist attack. The royal family commenting, PM commenting and Yvette cooper visiting tonight. Seems a tad ott.

Let's be honest here - if the driver had any hint of a foreign background, particularly if of a Muslim heritage, it would be assumed that terrorism or ideology was the motivation, regardless of whether there was a mental health issue, or simply drugs/drink.

Remember the young co-pilot of the German airliner who locked out the captain when he went to the loo and then crashed the plane into mountains? He was of immigrant Polish background in Germany and it was decided that he had mental health issues; if he'd been of Turkish heritage, regardless of his mental state, it would have been assumed it was Islamist terrorism.

Liverpool is a famous place and has a football team well known overseas so even if there had been no casualties, I would expect it to be reported

In case people don't know, Liverpool is close to Southport . I think the immediate response is because of that. The police and media are concerned to show that the driver was white , in case the racists started up again.

I think the better question is why you think that response makes it a terrorist attack?

School shootings are widely reported and rarely terrorist attacks.

Hillsborough Disaster is rightly still in the public consciousness and yet was nothing like a terrorist attack.

65 people were injured and a city was scared and had something bad happened to it

Terrorist attacks are horrific and awful events but not all horrific and awful events are terrorist attacks in fact very few are.

this is treated as an horrific and awful event as it should be

I think the comments and visits from people in high places are more.likely to be because they're politically sensitive to the views of people like PP here who believe no one cares about Liverpool/football fans/ordinary people, than an assumption that it was terrorism.

VIPs like the royal family comment on natural disasters which definitely aren’t terror related.

If it was terror related then I’d expect some sort of motive and the police to issue warnings because they thought that certain people are at ongoing risk of being attacked.

Hasn't stopped them claiming it's not a white male/it's a false flag/there's a police-MI5 conspiracy to distract away from the 'usual', though.

@Illjusthavethebreadsticks

if they had said nothing they would be criticised for that too, they can’t win!

passing on sympathy for the victims is the right thing to do, it’s not like they cancelled their booked events and rushed there!

In the world of football it was a huge event that I think 1% of the population of England were at - over 500,000. It was televised and had live blogs on newspaper sites and loads of social media posts.
it was a big deal already

Now princess Anne is visiting. Awful as it is I do feel it’s a bit much as thankfully no one died.

You sound like Sergeant Al Powell of Die Hard, "That's the FBI. They got the universal terrorist playbook and they're running it, step by step."

But seriously, the reaction is just of more high profile crime. Liverpool has had more than its fair share of atrocities and not always been treated as you would expect. Many football fans will keenly feel the injustice of Hillsborough tragedy. The Heysel disaster. Shooting of Rhys Jones. Ashley Dale. Bombing of the women's hospital. The murder of Olivia Pratt Korbel. The Southport stabbings. Just off the top of my head.

I agree.

If the details released had been of a different ethnicity, can you imagine what could have happened - even if the actual motivation was not terror related but due to something else, such as drugs or drink.

On terror - well look at some of the recent Incel attacks on women.

The crossbow attack in Leeds
The shooting in Plymouth

Are these terrorist actions?

https://news.sky.com/story/plymouth-shootings-attack-could-be-reclassified-as-terrorism-over-jake-davisons-incel-links-12383353