Mair shouted "Britain First" in the attack, but the judge said the true "patriot" was Mrs Cox, not Mair.

by scrat Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:02 pm

Judge Mr Justice Wilkie said the murder was carried out to advance a political cause of violent white supremacism, associated with Nazism.

He said the aggravating feature was the premeditation and planning over weeks, in which he researched his intended victim, the past assassination of a serving MP and matricide, knowing Mrs Cox was the mother of young children.

The judge sentenced Mair to life imprisonment, with a whole life term.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38079594

This should serve as a warning to the far right extremists on here, no doubt some will try and defend his actions.

by JulesV Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:25 pm

Well that was pretty straightforward, wasn't it.
Previous threads about Jo Cox have been very argumentative (I kept out of the arguments cos I felt that all the events and motives were pretty straightforward and there was nowt to 'argue' about).

The judge has the last word, and he has delivered it. Good.
I love the photo of her in the link, looking so pretty, just chilling by her boat, with her husband and kids inside.

Rest well, Jo Cox.
Rot well, Tommy Mair - your fellow prisoners may take an interesting view of big bullying men who beat and butcher women. Wink

by scrat Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:34 pm

Jules wrote:Well that was pretty straightforward, wasn't it.
Previous threads about Jo Cox have been very argumentative (I kept out of the arguments cos I felt that all the events and motives were pretty straightforward and there was nowt to 'argue' about).

The judge has the last word, and he has delivered it. Good.
I love the photo of her in the link, looking so pretty, just chilling by her boat, with her husband and kids inside.

Rest well, Jo Cox.
Rot well, Tommy Mair - your fellow prisoners may take an interesting view of big bullying men who beat and butcher women.

Its tragic, such a life and several lives snuffed out for some sick and twisted ideology and the fact that a few posters on this forum tried desperately to defend this creature and his neo Nazi outfit, the same way they tried to justify the actions of Breivik.

Surely this just shows us how we must be on our guard, ready and able to confront the racist neo Nazi bile they punt out.

by JulesV Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:39 pm

scrat wrote:
Jules wrote:Well that was pretty straightforward, wasn't it.
Previous threads about Jo Cox have been very argumentative (I kept out of the arguments cos I felt that all the events and motives were pretty straightforward and there was nowt to 'argue' about).

The judge has the last word, and he has delivered it. Good.
I love the photo of her in the link, looking so pretty, just chilling by her boat, with her husband and kids inside.

Rest well, Jo Cox.
Rot well, Tommy Mair - your fellow prisoners may take an interesting view of big bullying men who beat and butcher women.
Its tragic, such a life and several lives snuffed out for some sick and twisted ideology and the fact that a few posters on this forum tried desperately to defend this creature and his neo Nazi outfit, the same way they tried to justify the actions of Breivik.

Surely this just shows us how we must be on our guard, ready and able to confront the racist neo Nazi bile they punt out.

QUOTED
FOR
TRUTH.
Cool

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:41 pm

Nobody has defended him... in fact... everyone has condemned him and his actions.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:43 pm

Jules wrote:Well that was pretty straightforward, wasn't it.
Previous threads about Jo Cox have been very argumentative (I kept out of the arguments cos I felt that all the events and motives were pretty straightforward and there was nowt to 'argue' about).

The judge has the last word, and he has delivered it. Good.
I love the photo of her in the link, looking so pretty, just chilling by her boat, with her husband and kids inside.

Rest well, Jo Cox.
Rot well, Tommy Mair - your fellow prisoners may take an interesting view of big bullying men who beat and butcher women.

Who would have thought to see the day a Nazi murdered an MP on a street in the UK in the middle of the day.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:48 pm

Mr Bhana said Mair's conviction would "close a sad chapter" in the lives of those affected by Mrs Cox's death. (From cited source).

Closed a chapter perhaps - but not the book. Jo Cox's death is as much a result of good people remaining silent while the hate-mongers slowly but relentlessly pursued their agenda of scapegoating and hatred. It's scroungers, they cried, it's Muslims, it's migrants, it's even our comrades in WWII, the Poles. The reason that your lives are shit is down to anyone and everyone but yourselves.

The time for the quiet people of goodwill to awaken is long overdue.

by scrat Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:50 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Nobody has defended him... in fact... everyone has condemned him and his actions.

Liar, you tried desperately to link a Muslim witness to the "British first"cry as he slaughtered her, when several witnesses had also witnessed it.

"Addressing an impassive Mair, he said: "You affect to be a patriot. The words you uttered repeatedly when you killed her, give lip service to that concept.

"Those sentiments can be legitimate and can have resonance but in your mouth, allied to your actions, they are tainted and made toxic."

Mair's inspiration was not love of country but admiration for Nazism, the judge said"

You and TC wanted to "put the record straight" by trying to blame a Muslim for telling lies about his statement and yet you are the liars, she was slaughtered by the poison you punt out, the blood will not so easily wash from your hands.

by JulesV Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:05 pm

Ziz wrote: hate-mongers slowly but relentlessly pursued their agenda of scapegoating and hatred..

I feel I have done my bit, ziz. I have always spoken out against hate mongers.
Even when I'm a lone voice, in a minority of one, I have always challenged Nazis.

If I may add .. people who claim they themselves are moderate and reasonable , yet they *enable* hard core haters every which way .... trust me, you don't fool anyone.
All you are doing is keeping your own so called moderate hands clean, while happily watching others do all the dirty, nazi work.
To my mind, if you befriend and enable haters and Nazis, you are just as guilty as them.

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:10 pm

sassy wrote:
Jules wrote:Well that was pretty straightforward, wasn't it.
Previous threads about Jo Cox have been very argumentative (I kept out of the arguments cos I felt that all the events and motives were pretty straightforward and there was nowt to 'argue' about).

The judge has the last word, and he has delivered it. Good.
I love the photo of her in the link, looking so pretty, just chilling by her boat, with her husband and kids inside.

Rest well, Jo Cox.
Rot well, Tommy Mair - your fellow prisoners may take an interesting view of big bullying men who beat and butcher women.

Who would have thought to see the day a Nazi murdered an MP on a street in the UK in the middle of the day.

Yes especially after so many british fought and died against the nationalist socialists of Germany in ww2.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:10 pm

Jules wrote:
Ziz wrote:Mr Bhana said Mair's conviction would "close a sad chapter" in the lives of those affected by Mrs Cox's death. (From cited source).

Closed a chapter perhaps - but not the book. Jo Cox's death is as much a result of good people remaining silent while the hate-mongers slowly but relentlessly pursued their agenda of scapegoating and hatred. It's scroungers, they cried, it's Muslims, it's migrants, it's even our comrades in WWII, the Poles. The reason that your lives are shit is down to anyone and everyone but yourselves.

The time for the quiet people of goodwill to awaken is long overdue.
I feel I have done my bit, ziz. I have always spoken out against hate mongers.
Even when I'm a lone voice, in a minority of one I have always challenged Nazis.

If I may add .. people who claim they themselves are moderate and reasonable , yet they *enable* hard core haters every which way .... trust me, you don't fool anyone.
All you are doing is keeping your own so called moderate hands clean, while happily watching others do all the dirty, nazi work.
To my mind, if you befriend and enable haters and Nazis, you are just as guilty as them.

You are right to re-affirm that being moderate and reasonable does little or nothing to halt the hate-mongers. Hatred cannot be "accommodated", it must be combated by countering the lies that perpetuate it - and by providing an alternative narrative to the powerless and bewildered.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:13 pm

Ziz wrote:Mr Bhana said Mair's conviction would "close a sad chapter" in the lives of those affected by Mrs Cox's death. (From cited source).

Closed a chapter perhaps - but not the book. Jo Cox's death is as much a result of good people remaining silent while the hate-mongers slowly but relentlessly pursued their agenda of scapegoating and hatred. It's scroungers, they cried, it's Muslims, it's migrants, it's even our comrades in WWII, the Poles. The reason that your lives are shit is down to anyone and everyone but yourselves.

The time for the quiet people of goodwill to awaken is long overdue.

Have a greenie. I have spent my life fighting racism, a poison that seeps in like a snake and takes over if not challenged every single time. Those who use the cloak of nationalism to cover their hatred are the worst, ranting bile and filth and pretending it is patriotism. That's how Hitler got away with it, and I will not apologise for using him as an example, because if we don't learn from history it will happen again. It's well on the way there already. Then people will say 'I never realised it would get this serious, I thought if I just let them all get on with it, it would sort itself out'. Well it doesn't sort itself out. Left unchallenged evil will oil it's way into every corner. Everyone has a duty to stand up and be counted against it, no excuses.

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:13 pm

scrat wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Nobody has defended him... in fact... everyone has condemned him and his actions.

Liar, you tried desperately to link a Muslim witness to the "British first"cry as he slaughtered her, when several witnesses had also witnessed it.

"Addressing an impassive Mair, he said: "You affect to be a patriot. The words you uttered repeatedly when you killed her, give lip service to that concept.

"Those sentiments can be legitimate and can have resonance but in your mouth, allied to your actions, they are tainted and made toxic."

Mair's inspiration was not love of country but admiration for Nazism, the judge said"

You and TC wanted to "put the record straight" by trying to blame a Muslim for telling lies about his statement and yet you are the liars, she was slaughtered by the poison you punt out, the blood will not so easily wash from your hands.

No... I posted that he was actually saying "this is for Britain. Britain will always come first".

There was no evidence that he was a member of 'Britain first' or any other political group.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:15 pm

There is evidence that he was far-right though - just like Britain First with whom, at the very least, he sympathised

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
scrat wrote:
Liar, you tried desperately to link a Muslim witness to the "British first"cry as he slaughtered her, when several witnesses had also witnessed it.

"Addressing an impassive Mair, he said: "You affect to be a patriot. The words you uttered repeatedly when you killed her, give lip service to that concept.

"Those sentiments can be legitimate and can have resonance but in your mouth, allied to your actions, they are tainted and made toxic."

Mair's inspiration was not love of country but admiration for Nazism, the judge said"

You and TC wanted to "put the record straight" by trying to blame a Muslim for telling lies about his statement and yet you are the liars, she was slaughtered by the poison you punt out, the blood will not so easily wash from your hands.

No... I posted that he was actually saying "this is for Britain. Britain will always come first".

There was no evidence that he was a member of 'Britain first' or any other political group.

Bollocks, he was photographed running a stall for them, the photo is on here on another thread. And you make a point of saying that the witness was Muslim, and we know why you did that so don't worm now.

by Spindleshanks Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:18 pm

Someone else has mentioned it, I was just about to say wasn't there a photo of him on a BF stall published online.

Strange that so far as I can tell Britain First have made no comment about his guilty verdict or this photographic link to them.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:23 pm

Spindleshanks wrote:Someone else has mentioned it, I was just about to say wasn't there a photo of him on a BF stall published online.

Strange that so far as I can tell Britain First have made no comment about his guilty verdict or this photographic link to them.

Some allege that this is Mair. Mair shouted "Britain First" in the attack, but the judge said the true "patriot" was Mrs Cox, not Mair. 2190311264

Mair shouted "Britain First" in the attack, but the judge said the true "patriot" was Mrs Cox, not Mair. Murraybritfirst1

But member or not, he was certainly sympathetic to their cause.

by Spindleshanks Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:24 pm

Ziz wrote:
Spindleshanks wrote:Someone else has mentioned it, I was just about to say wasn't there a photo of him on a BF stall published online.

Strange that so far as I can tell Britain First have made no comment about his guilty verdict or this photographic link to them.

Some allege that this is Mair.

But member or not, he was certainly sympathetic to their cause.

It definitely looks like him

by scrat Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:25 pm

Jules wrote:
Ziz wrote: hate-mongers slowly but relentlessly pursued their agenda of scapegoating and hatred..

I feel I have done my bit, ziz. I have always spoken out against hate mongers.
Even when I'm a lone voice, in a minority of one, I have always challenged Nazis.

If I may add .. people who claim they themselves are moderate and reasonable , yet they *enable* hard core haters every which way .... trust me, you don't fool anyone.
All you are doing is keeping your own so called moderate hands clean, while happily watching others do all the dirty, nazi work.
To my mind, if you befriend and enable haters and Nazis, you are just as guilty as them.

I agree, freedom of speech is one thing but to constantly rant about, muzlemz, forunuz, blackz, white traitorz, etc, Well, It's more than a tad worrying, one can see it here on display and on this very forum, one hopes that they're being closely monitored because you're never quite sure when these fragile minds might pop, but that's what it's building up to and then another atrocity occurs.

If they cannot integrate into a multicultural society they shouldn't really be here, our grandparents fought to keep us free from Nazism and these cretins want to install it.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:25 pm

Spindleshanks wrote:Someone else has mentioned it, I was just about to say wasn't there a photo of him on a BF stall published online.

Strange that so far as I can tell Britain First have made no comment about his guilty verdict or this photographic link to them.

Their facebook page took it off fast after the murder but it had already been shown around. They have done their best to distance themselves from him, but too late.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:27 pm

Spindleshanks wrote:
Ziz wrote:

Some allege that this is Mair.

But member or not, he was certainly sympathetic to their cause.

It definitely looks like him

It matters little if it's him or not - the fact remains that poor Jo Cox was assassinated by a far-right political activist - that is how low these haters are prepared stoop.

by Victorismyhero Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:47 pm

scrat wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Nobody has defended him... in fact... everyone has condemned him and his actions.

Liar, you tried desperately to link a Muslim witness to the "British first"cry as he slaughtered her, when several witnesses had also witnessed it.

"Addressing an impassive Mair, he said: "You affect to be a patriot. The words you uttered repeatedly when you killed her, give lip service to that concept.

"Those sentiments can be legitimate and can have resonance but in your mouth, allied to your actions, they are tainted and made toxic."

Mair's inspiration was not love of country but admiration for Nazism, the judge said"

You and TC wanted to "put the record straight" by trying to blame a Muslim for telling lies about his statement and yet you are the liars, she was slaughtered by the poison you punt out, the blood will not so easily wash from your hands.

Oh dear ....lying again scratch............. I don't think I ever mentioned Muslims in this thread please link to where I did. Of course if you can't it merely confirms you status as forum liar. You also forget......I would quite cheerfully have the waste of space "stretched"

AS to the O/P. Good let's hope he does indeed serve "whole of life" and may he have some interesting cell mates.

by scrat Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:58 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
scrat wrote:
Liar, you tried desperately to link a Muslim witness to the "British first"cry as he slaughtered her, when several witnesses had also witnessed it.

"Addressing an impassive Mair, he said: "You affect to be a patriot. The words you uttered repeatedly when you killed her, give lip service to that concept.

"Those sentiments can be legitimate and can have resonance but in your mouth, allied to your actions, they are tainted and made toxic."

Mair's inspiration was not love of country but admiration for Nazism, the judge said"

You and TC wanted to "put the record straight" by trying to blame a Muslim for telling lies about his statement and yet you are the liars, she was slaughtered by the poison you punt out, the blood will not so easily wash from your hands.

Oh dear ....lying again scratch............. I don't think I ever mentioned Muslims in this thread please link to where I did. Of course if you can't it merely confirms you status as forum liar. You also forget......I would quite cheerfully have the waste of space "stretched"

AS to the O/P. Good let's hope he does indeed serve "whole of life" and may he have some interesting cell mates.

Its all there in the thread you locked, you called it "putting the record straight" well,,,you've both been put straight, and at least we now know why you're locking them

by Victorismyhero Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:10 pm

Oh you mean where I said Tommy should be allowed to set the record straight.......AS TO WHO SAID WHAT IN WHAT ORDER ON THE THREAD? So typically you are incapable of understanding the difference between an opinion and a request that a poster be allowed to clarify the issue?

You really are dumb

If a poster feels his point is taken out of context or whatever they are entitled to "set the record straight"

And that thread??? It was locked because you were not debating anything ,rather you were on your usual crusade to abuse. Its still visible for all to see

by Victorismyhero Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:14 pm

Talk about anti freedom of speech and opinion

You only want speech to be free for you and your fellow OGPU types

I may not agree with what a man says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it.

by Spindleshanks Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:27 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Talk about anti freedom of speech and opinion

You only want speech to be free for you and your fellow OGPU types

I may not agree with what a man says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it.

Are you against any form of free speech limitations?

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:36 pm

sassy wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

No... I posted that he was actually saying "this is for Britain. Britain will always come first".

There was no evidence that he was a member of 'Britain first' or any other political group.

Bollocks, he was photographed running a stall for them, the photo is on here on another thread. And you make a point of saying that the witness was Muslim, and we know why you did that so don't worm now.

I remember you posting up a picture of some bloke with loads of tattoos on his arms doing a Nazi salute and saying it was Mair... except in the pictures of his arrest he doesn't have any tattoos...

The other picture that was posted allegedly of him being part of a group holding a banner was discredited too...

All I made a point of was quoting what the witnesses claimed he said in their statements...

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:39 pm

The fact remains that Jo Cox was assassinated by a far-right political activist - that is how low the haters are prepared to stoop - sorry if that makes anyone uncomfortable.

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:46 pm

She was murdered by a nationalist socialist who appears to have had a history of mental health issues...

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:53 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:She was murdered by a nationalist socialist who appears to have had a history of mental health issues...

His mental health issues are not relevant - nor was he a national socialist. Piss-poor and frankly disgusting attempt at deflection.

by Victorismyhero Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:03 pm

Spindleshanks wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:Talk about anti freedom of speech and opinion

You only want speech to be free for you and your fellow OGPU types

I may not agree with what a man says, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it.

Are you against any form of free speech limitations?

Where it constitutes what I would term inciteful or derogatory hate speech applied to what in law are considered "natural persons" I would agree it needs restriction duly sanctioned by legislation (as opposed to some dickheadonaforum's mere opinion) Being against race religion or anything else. Even if it could be taken as offensive,that in itself is NOT reason to restrict it.

Your, or indeed anyone elses right to be offended does not trump my right to freedom of opinion and speech. This f course,within day to day living is tempered, justly, by the reasonable right NOT to have lies broadcast about oneself, and such is of course addressed by the laws of slander and libel.

by Victorismyhero Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:12 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:She was murdered by a nationalist socialist who appears to have had a history of mental health issues...

His mental health issues may explain WYH he did it..I.e give an insight into his motives. IT DOES NOT in any way mitigate his culpability. He is NOT insane,in as much as he knew full well just how wrong he was to do this, and was and is fully aware of the evil he comitted.

What he is, is a sniveling criminal coward, taking an extreme philosophy to its logical and horrible conclusion.

by Spindleshanks Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:13 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Spindleshanks wrote:

Are you against any form of free speech limitations?

Where it constitutes what I would term inciteful or derogatory hate speech applied to what in law are considered "natural persons" I would agree it needs restriction duly sanctioned by legislation (as opposed to some dickheadonaforum's mere opinion) Being against race religion or anything else. Even if it could be taken as offensive,that in itself is NOT reason to restrict it.

Your, or indeed anyone elses right to be offended does not trump my right to freedom of opinion and speech. This f course,within day to day living is tempered, justly, by the reasonable right NOT to have lies broadcast about oneself, and such is of course addressed by the laws of slander and libel.

Is there such a thing as unnatural persons?

by Spindleshanks Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
sassy wrote:

Bollocks, he was photographed running a stall for them, the photo is on here on another thread. And you make a point of saying that the witness was Muslim, and we know why you did that so don't worm now.

I remember you posting up a picture of some bloke with loads of tattoos on his arms doing a Nazi salute and saying it was Mair... except in the pictures of his arrest he doesn't have any tattoos...

The other picture that was posted allegedly of him being part of a group holding a banner was discredited too...

All I made a point of was quoting what the witnesses claimed he said in their statements...

Discredited by whom?

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:17 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:She was murdered by a nationalist socialist who appears to have had a history of mental health issues...

His mental health issues may explain WYH he did it..I.e give an insight into his motives. IT DOES NOT in any way mitigate his culpability. He is NOT insane,in as much as he knew full well just how wrong he was to do this, and was and is fully aware of the evil he comitted.

What he is, is a sniveling criminal coward, taking an extreme philosophy to its logical and horrible conclusion.

Of course, on one level it can be argued that anyone who takes a life over something so little has mental health problems, I suppose. But you are perfectly correct.

by Victorismyhero Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:20 pm

Spindleshanks wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Spindleshanks wrote:

Are you against any form of free speech limitations?

Where it constitutes what I would term inciteful or derogatory hate speech applied to what in law are considered "natural persons" I would agree it needs restriction duly sanctioned by legislation (as opposed to some dickheadonaforum's mere opinion) Being against race religion or anything else. Even if it could be taken as offensive,that in itself is NOT reason to restrict it.

Your, or indeed anyone elses right to be offended does not trump my right to freedom of opinion and speech. This f course,within day to day living is tempered, justly, by the reasonable right NOT to have lies broadcast about oneself, and such is of course addressed by the laws of slander and libel.

Is there such a thing as unnatural persons?

In law? Actually yes,or rather non_natural persons

By way of explanation a natural person is a living or has been living person
A non natural person is a for example a company which in certain case is treated for purpose of law as a person (for instance where a company is fined for a h& s breach.

Consult Wikipedia's definition.

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:38 pm

Ziz wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:She was murdered by a nationalist socialist who appears to have had a history of mental health issues...

His mental health issues are not relevant - nor was he a national socialist. Piss-poor and frankly disgusting attempt at deflection.

He had a history of mental health issues... and it was proven in court that he had a keen interest in national Socialism...

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ziz wrote:

His mental health issues are not relevant - nor was he a national socialist. Piss-poor and frankly disgusting attempt at deflection.

He had a history of mental health issues... and it was proven in court that he had a keen interest in national Socialism...

Irrelevant.

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:43 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:She was murdered by a nationalist socialist who appears to have had a history of mental health issues...

His mental health issues may explain WYH he did it..I.e give an insight into his motives. IT DOES NOT in any way mitigate his culpability. He is NOT insane,in as much as he knew full well just how wrong he was to do this, and was and is fully aware of the evil he comitted.

What he is, is a sniveling criminal coward, taking an extreme philosophy to its logical and horrible conclusion.

If his mental health was a major factor in his actions then the rest cannot be true.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:45 pm

His mental health had no legal relevance - so there is no "if".

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:48 pm

Spindleshanks wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

I remember you posting up a picture of some bloke with loads of tattoos on his arms doing a Nazi salute and saying it was Mair... except in the pictures of his arrest he doesn't have any tattoos...

The other picture that was posted allegedly of him being part of a group holding a banner was discredited too...

All I made a point of was quoting what the witnesses claimed he said in their statements...

Discredited by whom?

The banner pic was posted here and when scrutinised it appeared to have several anomalies that smacked of photoshop editing...

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:00 pm

Ziz wrote:His mental health had no legal relevance - so there is no "if".

Of course mental health has legal relevance in criminal proceedings!

The fact this wasn't brought up by his defence team is remarkably surprising...

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:02 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ziz wrote:His mental health had no legal relevance - so there is no "if".

Of course mental health has legal relevance in criminal proceedings!

The fact this wasn't brought up by his defence team is remarkably surprising...

Not in this case - no mitigation, he's banged up for life - good. Mair shouted "Britain First" in the attack, but the judge said the true "patriot" was Mrs Cox, not Mair. 77526

Mair shouted "Britain First" in the attack, but the judge said the true "patriot" was Mrs Cox, not Mair. 77526

by Spindleshanks Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:30 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Spindleshanks wrote:

Discredited by whom?

The banner pic was posted here and when scrutinised it appeared to have several anomalies that smacked of photoshop editing...

Such as?

by scrat Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:49 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Oh you mean where I said Tommy should be allowed to set the record straight.......AS TO WHO SAID WHAT IN WHAT ORDER ON THE THREAD? So typically you are incapable of understanding the difference between an opinion and a request that a poster be allowed to clarify the issue?

You really are dumb

If a poster feels his point is taken out of context or whatever they are entitled to "set the record straight"

And that thread??? It was locked because you were not debating anything ,rather you were on your usual crusade to abuse. Its still visible for all to see

One can tell by Tommys continual bleatage that it has yet to sink in that one of your own is responsible for this tragedy, and as Tommy squirms around in the discomfort of his lies, perhaps you could point him in the right direction and put the record straight.

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:02 pm

Ziz wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Of course mental health has legal relevance in criminal proceedings!

The fact this wasn't brought up by his defence team is remarkably surprising...

Not in this case - no mitigation, he's banged up for life - good.

The only reason it was not a consideration in this trial was because his defence team failed to bring it up...

It would not have changed the outcome of this dangerous individual being incarcerated for a very long time... of which I am glad of... but may have determined a place more appropriate.

by Guest Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:08 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ziz wrote:

Not in this case - no mitigation, he's banged up for life - good.

The only reason it was not a consideration in this trial was because his defence team failed to bring it up...

It would not have changed the outcome of this dangerous individual being incarcerated for a very long time... of which I am glad of... but may have determined a place more appropriate.

Probably because they knew it wouldn't wash - right-wing terrorism is somewhat frowned upon.

by Victorismyhero Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:09 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ziz wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Of course mental health has legal relevance in criminal proceedings!

The fact this wasn't brought up by his defence team is remarkably surprising...

Not in this case - no mitigation, he's banged up for life - good.

The only reason it was not a consideration in this trial was because his defence team failed to bring it up...

It would not have changed the outcome of this dangerous individual being incarcerated for a very long time... of which I am glad of... but may have determined a place more appropriate.

No you are wrong...

he is NOT "criminally insane"

as proven by his planning etc...

he knew the wrong of it

the only time a mental health plea is relevant is if it diminished "capacity"

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:24 pm

Spindleshanks wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

The banner pic was posted here and when scrutinised it appeared to have several anomalies that smacked of photoshop editing...

Such as?

You'll have to search for the thread to read full details of what was pointed out and considered highly dubious at the time...

Or just have a good look yourself... think a couple of the biggest/funniest give aways was that there was an extra leg or two with no bodies above and a missing hand where it was supposed to be holding top of banner... and if I remember rightly, I think some of the background road signs and shop signs suggested was a location outside of uk...

by Tommy Monk Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:46 pm

Ziz wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

The only reason it was not a consideration in this trial was because his defence team failed to bring it up...

It would not have changed the outcome of this dangerous individual being incarcerated for a very long time... of which I am glad of... but may have determined a place more appropriate.

Probably because they knew it wouldn't wash - right-wing terrorism is somewhat frowned upon.

It was the duty of the defence team to present any/every thing of any bearing that they possibly could, regardless of whether they thought it would 'wash' or not... and for the court to then decide that!

Given that offering no defence resulted in a guilty verdict and whole of life term... surely offering some defence, regardless of wash value, couldn't have been any worse...!?

by Sponsored content