• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

'Soldier beheaded' outside barracks in Woolwich

but is he pleeing guilty cause he doesnt want to die if he is wrongly convicted? or did he like blatantly kill all those people for sport / anger or something
 
Disgraceful indeed. But my guess is he absolutely snapped. No training can prepare these young men to be soldiers and diplomats. He quite patently lost his mind. Does not excuse the crime obviously, but might help explain it partially?
 
A checkout assistant temporarily suspended from supermarket Morrisons for wearing a Help for Heroes wristband in support of murdered soldier Lee Rigby has resigned.

Human rights group Liberty, which is now representing Adam Austin, from Portsmouth, has threatened the chain with an unfair dismissal claim if it does not issue a full apology and pay him compensation for lost earnings.

Mr Austin's suspension was ultimately lifted but he decided he could not continue working at the Victory Retail Park store after being questioned by management on his return about wearing the wristband and small poppy badge, Liberty said.

Liberty argues this was a "constructive dismissal" as Mr Austin resigned in response to one or more breaches of his contract.

Mr Austin, 28, wore the wristband and badge to work in tribute to Drummer Rigby after the solider was hacked to death near Woolwich barracks on May 22.

Corinna Ferguson, Liberty legal officer, said: "The ban on wearing a Help for Heroes wristband and a poppy badge was a clear interference with Mr Austin's right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act.

"Morrisons' unreasonable behaviour is underlined by the fact the policy was changed within two days of his suspension - a suspension carried out in such a way as to humiliate him in front of colleagues and customers alike."

Mr Austin claims he took off the wristband to avoid a scene in front of customers but was removed from his checkout by management staff, suspended pending a disciplinary hearing and escorted off the premises.

Mr Austin alleges he was originally accused of gross misconduct for not carrying out a reasonable instruction from a manager and for breaching company dress standards.

A couple of days later the company updated its rules on wristbands and badges to allow employees not preparing fresh food to wear such items in support of registered charities.

Mr Austin claims upon his return to work he was called into a meeting with management staff, quizzed about wearing the items and warned about using social media and speaking to journalists.

Liberty said Mr Austin would rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to freedom of expression, at an employment tribunal.

Liberty argued that Mr Austin's "dismissal" was not fair under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
 
Not getting into the politics of things here but i no longer have respect for people that resign from job. I used to think it was honourable now i think there tossers. If it was me i would tell them they would have to sack me and call security because i was not going to go quietly.

The wife had to sign a form saying she would not slag off the company she does some contract work for on social media. So she does not slag them off.

O/T the prison servicein this country is a fudging joke;):p
 
japenesegardenlover said:
Not getting into the politics of things here but i no longer have respect for people that resign from job. I used to think it was honourable now i think there tossers. If it was me i would tell them they would have to sack me and call security because i was not going to go quietly.

The wife had to sign a form saying she would not slag off the company she does some contract work for on social media. So she does not slag them off.

O/T the prison servicein this country is a fudging joke;):p
Click to expand...

Agreed.
It's a massive mistake from Morrisons. How absurd. And yes, the guy should have got the media even further behind the stupidity of it, as Morrisons would've had to buckle.

With regards to social media, only an idiot would talk too much about their work on social media sites these days and not expect it to be seen by all and sundry. Everything we say on the web is, sadly, open viewing for someone. Privacy, whilst very nice in concept and somewhat implemented, will only get you so far if someone wants to dig into your social media accounts. This, sadly, is the 'world' we live in...
 
The definition of the word terrorist/terrorism = "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22785074

Now the media have decided this is a 'hate crime'. They're very clever with their words and the messages they're trying to send out which was what i said earlier.
 
until someone steps up and takes the credit/blame for it they don't know enough to say anymore?
 
billyiddo said:
until someone steps up and takes the credit/blame for it they don't know enough to say anymore?
Click to expand...

Not really mate.

It is, by the definitions we all live by, a terrorist act. It is the burning of a religious building designed to intimidate a sector of the population. That it is also a hate crime is true.

I would also say that by putting the letters EDL on the building, even Inspector Clouseau would have a pretty decent idea of who is behind this.
 
well yes if it was the EDL that were behind it then it would go down as an act of terrorism i guess, although atm a piece of graffiti is not exactly concrete proof is it?

although i doubt, personally, that it would be the EDL that were behind it, maybe a couple of idiots who follow them acting of their own accord (which makes no difference in whether it was an act of terrorism or not, just who shoulders the blame) possibly even an insurance scam or maybe not even an act of arson at all - don't know anything at this point really do we?
 
billyiddo said:
well yes if it was the EDL that were behind it then it would go down as an act of terrorism i guess, although atm a piece of graffiti is not exactly concrete proof is it?

although i doubt, personally, that it would be the EDL that were behind it, maybe a couple of idiots who follow them acting of their own accord (which makes no difference in whether it was an act of terrorism or not, just who shoulders the blame) possibly even an insurance scam or maybe not even an act of arson at all - don't know anything at this point really do we?
Click to expand...

...in which case, why term it a hate crime even?

I know what you're getting at, but I think there's an equally strong point in saying that no-one (in media) paints themselves in glory with regards to how quick they are to use the word 'terrorism' in some actions but not in others.
 
thfcsteff said:
...in which case, why term it a hate crime even?

I know what you're getting at, but I think there's an equally strong point in saying that no-one (in media) paints themselves in glory with regards to how quick they are to use the word 'terrorism' in some actions but not in others.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY.

If they've labelled it a "hate crime" then they're obviously of the belief that the evidence (EDL sprayed on the wall) is sufficient enough to label it that. Well then if that's the case why not label it a "suspected terror crime" or an "act of terrorism". They choose carefully which groups of people they can attach the word "terrorist" with.
 
no sorry - without knowing who the perpetrators are and their reasons for doing so you can't label something as an act of terrorism. (the Woolwich thing had a video of the man providing enough for them to label it an act of terrorism - all we have now is some supposed graffiti which we have no real evidence that it is linked, at this point)

at the moment all we know is that a Mosque has burnt down, they obviously think it was arson. now if someone decides "i wanna burn down a Mosque" then it's highly likely that person has a problem with Muslims or those particular people in that particular Mosque - which makes it a hate crime, IF it was done with greater intentions in mind (see your definition of terrorism above) then im sure it will be labelled as such - at the moment those reasons aren't apparent and it's only people putting 2 and 2 together to make it what they want it to be.

the media have no problem labeling the IRA as terrorists KD and im sure if i could be bothered i could find other examples - i think you're looking for something that isn't, or maybe that it is there but this isn't particularly the instance to prove it, not in my view at least


as an aside i find it quite interesting that UAF have no hesitation storming down to Muswell Hill in an act of defiance against this particular incident but they don't ever feel the need to make a stand against extremism when it's coming from the other direction
 
Kingdawson said:
EXACTLY.

If they've labelled it a "hate crime" then they're obviously of the belief that the evidence (EDL sprayed on the wall) is sufficient enough to label it that. Well then if that's the case why not label it a "suspected terror crime" or an "act of terrorism". They choose carefully which groups of people they can attach the word "terrorist" with.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you Kingdawson, i maybe right wing but i hate how the thug at the EDL and BNP attach themselves to right wing politics and try to make themselves sound reasonable because they are not.

I would imagine it is very likely edl supporters did this and therefore that taco of a leader of theres is as bad as any of the islamic nutters standing in the street sprouting off. Whoever did this needs to do serious prison time as people could easily have died. They did it to create terror so it is an act of terrorism.

Unlike tony blair i do not think the is a problem with muslims in this country and they should not be attacked, the liberal elite on the other hand are a problem, but they should not be attacked either, they should be forced out of their positions of power, the cutting of the legal aid budget is a step in the right direction.
 
billyiddo said:
no sorry - without knowing who the perpetrators are and their reasons for doing so you can't label something as an act of terrorism. (the Woolwich thing had a video of the man providing enough for them to label it an act of terrorism - all we have now is some supposed graffiti which we have no real evidence that it is linked, at this point)

at the moment all we know is that a Mosque has burnt down, they obviously think it was arson. now if someone decides "i wanna burn down a Mosque" then it's highly likely that person has a problem with Muslims or those particular people in that particular Mosque - which makes it a hate crime, IF it was done with greater intentions in mind (see your definition of terrorism above) then im sure it will be labelled as such - at the moment those reasons aren't apparent and it's only people putting 2 and 2 together to make it what they want it to be.

the media have no problem labeling the IRA as terrorists KD and im sure if i could be bothered i could find other examples - i think you're looking for something that isn't, or maybe that it is there but this isn't particularly the instance to prove it, not in my view at least


as an aside i find it quite interesting that UAF have no hesitation storming down to Muswell Hill in an act of defiance against this particular incident but they don't ever feel the need to make a stand against extremism when it's coming from the other direction
Click to expand...

Mate...you do know that Bush and Bliar declared a 'war on terror' which isn't even remotely possible by the strictest definitions of the conditions necessary to declare and act of war. Many violent acts over the years have been declared 'terrorist acts' without any specific 'link' other than suspected. again, I am not a muslim but it appears to me that the media would never ever declare an act like this a 'terrorist' act because frankly, the backlash they'd receive in the current climate would be massive.

Frankly, I think the term 'terrorist act' has been way over-used anyway. Single disgraceful acts of violence are, for me, just that; to call them 'terrorism' just ratchets up the tension and the 'juiciness' of the story...
 
Really annoys me how the definition of terrorism has changed over time. Terrorism is simply the violent act of an organisation or individual against a country due to political motives.

If a former employee(s) wages a bombing campaign against his former employer, that is not terrorism even if the campaign is waged over multiple sites or even countries.
If one religious faction decides to start killing members of another religious faction that is not terrorism (unless the campaign is being waged against a country governed by a Theocratic ruling organisation or individual).

Crimes committed against a minority in a country is not terrorism either, even if politically motived. That is persecution, which is a different thing all together.

So with regards to the current affairs? The UK is not a Muslim country (and despite the Church of England, we are not a Theocratic country and therefore you can replace Muslim with any religion in this context), although Muslims live in it. Crimes against the country, or individuals, committed by Muslims due to political motivations IS terrorism. Crimes against Muslims in this country committed by anti-Muslim individuals or organisations is NOT terrorism, but is persecution.
 
Jumpers said:
Really annoys me how the definition of terrorism has changed over time. Terrorism is simply the violent act of an organisation or individual against a country due to political motives.

If a former employee(s) wages a bombing campaign against his former employer, that is not terrorism even if the campaign is waged over multiple sites or even countries.
If one religious faction decides to start killing members of another religious faction that is not terrorism (unless the campaign is being waged against a country governed by a Theocratic ruling organisation or individual).

Crimes committed against a minority in a country is not terrorism either, even if politically motived. That is persecution, which is a different thing all together.

So with regards to the current affairs? The UK is not a Muslim country (and despite the Church of England, we are not a Theocratic country and therefore you can replace Muslim with any religion in this context), although Muslims live in it. Crimes against the country, or individuals, committed by Muslims due to political motivations IS terrorism. Crimes against Muslims in this country committed by anti-Muslim individuals or organisations is NOT terrorism, but is persecution.
Click to expand...

The other defining point is usually the attacks on individuals are not targeted against specific individuals if they aren't part of the ruling government or military. Terrorist acts don't target individuals unless there is a strategic benefit. Usually the killings are against people they don't know and the victims are just unlucky. If there is no strategic target, but a person is specifically targeted then this isn't terrorism. It's murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back