Ann Widdecombe Thread 2

[dapsnotplimsolls]

Continue ...

Which is fair enough. I get that. My view remains the same. As soon as the words, 'doesn't appear to be terror related' left the cops mouth, it shines a spotlight on the subject. Far more prudent to not be drawn. Yes, people will still then speculate but the police at least don't make themselves look daft. They're their own worst enemy.

Have the police definitely said one way or the other that it is or not political/terrorist? I understood that they just said they were keeping an open mind, and that it was now referred to counter-terrorism. But I believe counter-terrorism also includes people with uncertain/mixed ideology where they might have acted on a political belief like one of the above, but they weren't, say, a Labour party activist or something

You, and others, keep talking about 'their statement' or statements. The 'political motive' wasn't mentioned in any of the initial statements. They were, in your parlance, 'thought through'. It was only after the latest arrest was made that they, unasked, stated that they had nothing to suggest at that stage it was politically motivated.

So, despite the fact that the official statements (available on D&C Police's website) didn't suggest a motive, and despite the fact that they asked people not to speculate. Everyone, including the media, kept speculating and asking. Evidently it makes no difference to the media or the public what the police say.

This

No they simply have to state that they are in the process of gathering evidence and have not yet established a motive. Rather than categorically exclude one particular motive and then have to back track on it.

Where did they categorically exclude anything?

People demand that the police should do this that or the other, but they can't do the one thing they are asked to do, which is not speculate on social media.

Separately, personally I find the phrase "terror-related" a little unclear. I do think it's a bit meaningless if used for individual murders - I think the public understands it to mean "is there a risk to the public of larger, mass public killings". Is there suspicion of that?

I think that's separate from, say, getting referred to counter-terrorism because that's the department that has more resources or experts in tracing online posts or something.

Why do the police ask people not to speculate? It's a natural human response, and telling people not to do it always achieves the opposite effect.

@OneAmberFinch the police have re-arrested the man "on suspicion of commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."

He was already held in custody on suspicion of murder.

I suppose to be accurate, arresting on suspicion of is not the same as saying there definitely is a terrorist motive. They're still investigating and doubtless there is a great deal more to be discovered.

Interesting, thanks.

Because it's counter productive to the ongoing investigation and crucially is upsetting to the friends and family of the deceased.

Speculation online and MSM specifically. That's not stopping people having a private chat about it.

@OonaStubbs because, depending where they are speculating, it can jeopardise a trial.

If you are asked to be a member of the jury and all you have seen on social media is that the accused is definitely a terrorist, he definitely did it, he hates women, various theories why he did it etc etc, how objective would you be when deciding the verdict. Could you honestly say you haven't been impacted by anything you have been reading for months. The defence could argue with everything that is out there on the Internet that there can't be a fair trial.

Also, for the families it must be horrendous seeing everything out there

Speculation can cause rent a mob to get involved

By the way I think some posters are confusing "party political" with "political".

Take the alleged foiled attack on the White House last month, intending to assassinate Donald Trump and many high-profile people. It was not by any stretch of the imagination in favour of either the Republican or Democratic parties.

But the Tycen Proper, one of the apparently Christo-nationalist plotters, was overt that his motive was political.

Has anyone seen the video on the BBC of the suspect getting into his car. To me the thing in his pocket is a Japanese short sword or simiar.

Because of ‘sub judice’. Basically, it’s to prevent trial by media. If people speculate and the case goes to trial by jury, then solicitors for the accused can argue that it would be impossible to get an unbiased jury.

Oh good lord. As I was typing that, another example of a non-party political terrorist attack (alleged) rather closer to home has emerged.

News story just a few minutes ago: happened yesterday in Suffolk.

Twelve arrested over threat to Islamic event
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl20x1ggpo

Twelve people have been arrested over an alleged right-wing terror threat to an Islamic event at a country estate in Suffolk, police said.

Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP) London said the UK Ijtima event at Shrubland Hall at Barham was ended early on Sunday as a precaution after the possible threat.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the response of the police in tackling a "credible threat" to the festival had "undoubtedly saved lives".

Commander Helen Flanagan, head of Counter Terrorism Policing London, said officers moved quickly to make the arrests across various locations in the country.

CTP confirmed the investigation was "right-wing terrorism related" and officers were conducting searches at various addresses across the country linked to those arrested.

It said eight men were arrested and detained under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and remain in custody.

Three other men were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to murder and a woman was arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender.

You've linked this incident to Southport and Henry Nowak. What minority were you thinking of that you consider the public is being manipulated in favour of?

It's days into an investigation. Surely you understand that there may be changes as they probe deeper into the evidence they're collating. There wasn't evidence to suggest a political motivation when they made that statement. Now there is.

Constantly having to update the public while maintaining the integrity of an ongoing investigation while at the same time not prejudicing a potential future court case must be a nightmare.

All this to placate the purveyors of 24hr 'news', conspiracy theorists and armchair detectives.

A stick or metal pole I read..

Well there's a difference speculating in your kitchen with your DSIS, to being a leader of a political party and speculating on every social media site you can to ramp up the tension. It is the opposite of what the family wanted.

The minority that doesn't want certain discussion being made. Is that OK?.I know its a desperate attempt to bring a phobia into a thread about a murder ex MP.

On a point of law, what does “re-arrested” mean? The man was already under arrest.

It means arrested on a different charge.

It's since the advent of social media. Of course people have always speculated, gossiped and spread rumours. It is just now that any indvidual can post a video on YouTube, make a comment on X that goes viral and reaches millions or even post some errant nonsense on Facebook and there is it for all to see when a case goes to court. What eveyone wants is for whoever is reponsible is charged, tried and convicted but rumour and conjecture can hamper this. Judges always caution juries not to research anything connected with a trial because it can influence then and cause a trial to collapse, Nobody wants that

Different charge, or if released can be re-arrested if new evidence

And because, as we saw in Southport, speculation can and does lead to further social unrest and violence.