Prison officers lucky to be alive after terror attack at high-security jail, officials say

First topic message reminder :

Prison officers were lucky to escape with their lives during a suspected terror attack in a high-security prison, officials have said.

Five members of staff at HMP Whitemoor were stabbed by two inmates who were wearing fake suicide vests on Thursday morning.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/prison-officer-hmp-whitemoor-prison-suicide-terror-brusthom-ziamani-a9278076.html

Tommy Monk wrote:

Nobody was killed... So it just shows how much you really look at the facts...

That just shows you how irrelevant the issue of the stabbing was. We weren't even arguing the stabbing...that's a given. I was debating whether it's terrorism. Here, again, is my early exception:

Original Quill wrote:Lot's of people have been stabbed, going back to the beginning. Yet 'terrorism' is a relatively recent term. Are we just heaping on charges, thus watering down the allegation? Or, do we want to reserve it for situations in which the terrorism is real.

The authorities are treating it as terrorism...

Tommy Monk wrote:

The authorities are treating it as terrorism...

...and without evidence.

If we are going to move forward without evidence, the defense could argue it was an alien invasion. To say it is terrorism, without evidence, is ridiculous.

Not without evidence... They will have to have evidence to prove it when it is all facing judiciary...


There may not be any detail of the evidence in the newspaper article... But that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence...


Surely you must know that not all details are always printed in a newspaper article about any event...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:
Not without evidence... They will have to have evidence to prove it when it is all facing judiciary...

There may not be any detail of the evidence in the newspaper article... But that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence...

Well, what does mean the evidence exists?  The clear implication of not talking about evidence, is to suggest you have no evidence.

Law is based on positivism: there must be positive evidence leading to a conclusion about facts...in this case, motive.  Terrorism is not a charge you want to treat lightly.  What predicate facts give rise to the allegation of terrorism, in this instance?  To go back to his initial charge is to confuse the two crimes, and commit the fallacy of association.

Tommy Monk wrote:Surely you must know that not all details are always printed in a newspaper article about any event...!?

Again, why treat a charge of terrorism so lightly?  What you are saying is, it's not important enough to even appear in the newspaper.  So, why bother with it?  Certainly, attempted murder will suffice.  If there is no evidence of terrorism, drop it.

The authorities have all the details... And are treating this as terrorism...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Nobody was killed... So it just shows how much you really look at the facts...

Dude, you changed the subject.  My subject was the absence of evidence of terrorism.  Here's my original point:

Original Quill wrote:Lot's of people have been stabbed, going back to the beginning. Yet 'terrorism' is a relatively recent term. Are we just heaping on charges, thus watering down the allegation? Or, do we want to reserve it for situations in which the terrorism is real.

You misread my point, and went off on the stabbing itself.  I don't give a shit whether he is dead or alive.  It's a red herring.

The authorities are treating it as terrorism so obviously there must be evidence that supports this...


The newspaper article might not supply the details... But that doesn't mean that the details don't exist...

Tommy Monk wrote:

The authorities are treating it as terrorism so obviously there must be evidence that supports this...

The newspaper article might not supply the details... But that doesn't mean that the details don't exist...

The Germans said the same thing about the Jews: We can't tell you, but there is evidence.

Don't be a twat quill...


One is already in prison for terrorism... The other is a Muslim convert already in prison for other offences...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Don't be a twat quill...

One is already in prison for terrorism... The other is a Muslim convert already in prison for other offences.

So? The most you can say is, he likes extreme measures. He might even have learned to be so ruthless in one of those camps.

But I think they'll find he did it because one of the guards was on the take, and double-crossed him. Maybe he was paying the guard for drugs or alcohol, and the guy didn't come through. Something much simpler than terrorism.

BTW...what kind of terror can you cause in prison, anyway? You're already caught. It was a simple heinous act, unlikely to convey much of a message. Use your head.

You are a terrorist appeaser...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

You are a terrorist appeaser...!

...and you are a wrongful accuser. There is no evidence to substantiate your claim. You would be one of the accusers of Hester Prynne of being a witch.

All I did was post a thread about it... And I quoted the source news media article...


You are making too much out of it all...

Tommy Monk wrote:

All I did was post a thread about it... And I quoted the source news media article...

You are making too much out of it all...

Well--and I thank you for starting the thread--all I'm doing is focusing in on one facet of the story.  The mere mention of terrorism (as the original crime) leaves the impression that terrorism was the crime in question. The headline itself calls it a terror attack, and in the text repeats this with only half a retraction, calling it a "suspected terror attack".  With no evidence, that is misleading.

I just wanted to clarify. The extra effort comes from you and others, who don't want to accept the clarification, but neither do you have the evidence to contradict.

Maybe that's the problem, focusing on one facet.

Vintage wrote:Maybe that's the problem, focusing on one facet.

It is often the case that a single facet of a story is the most important ingredient.  Who would mention WWII, and yet forget about the holocaust?  Who would talk about a rape, yet fail to mention the issue of consent?  Crucial pieces of a story are often the point of the story.

Officially arrested on the charges now...


https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/men-arrested-suspicion-conspiracy-murder-17850726

It's appalling to hear of terrorist prisoners attacking prison staff. I hope Tommy Mair doesn't get any ideas.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Officially arrested on the charges now...

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/men-arrested-suspicion-conspiracy-murder-17850726

Will not link for US. Got another link?

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2020-03-03/two-arrested-for-terror-offences-over-attack-on-prison-officer-at-whitemoor-in-cambridgeshire/

Tommy Monk wrote:

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2020-03-03/two-arrested-for-terror-offences-over-attack-on-prison-officer-at-whitemoor-in-cambridgeshire/

Also won't open.  But I can read in the margins.  It says two charges: conspiracy to murder, and preparation of a terrorist act.  They didn't detail the evidence that it was a terrorist act.  Are they keeping it secret, or is it that they don't have much on that count?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/hmp-whitemoor-terror-attack-prison-officer-arrests-a4376736.html


Or...


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-51715985



You could always try to find your own link source to this widely publicised news story...!?

As I said, I can read in the margins.

It says two charges: conspiracy to murder, and preparation of a terrorist act. They didn't detail the evidence that it was a terrorist act. Are they keeping it secret, or is it that they don't have much on that count?

Disclosure of evidence will happen under due process...


Thought a pretend lawyer should know that...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Disclosure of evidence will happen under due process...

Thought a pretend lawyer should know that...!?

It's not my case to make. As a perceptive lawyer, if your case is unsubstantiated it means that I win. Why would I help you search for non-existent evidence when the very fact that your evidence is missing, helps my own claim.

There is no evidence of terrorism to this story.

I said you could find your own link to the story, if you have trouble opening the links I provided...


Nothing to do with disclosure of evidence... That happens between prosecution and defence plaintiff/lawyers in the run up to a trial... thought you would know that...


Evidence is not disclosed to the general news media outlets for the perusal and discussion of the public before trial... for reasons of ensuring rights to a fair trial... Thought you would know that too...!?


You're not a very good pretend lawyer... are you...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:I said you could find your own link to the story, if you have trouble opening the links I provided...

Nothing to do with disclosure of evidence... That happens between prosecution and defence plaintiff/lawyers in the run up to a trial... thought you would know that...

Evidence is not disclosed to the general news media outlets for the perusal and discussion of the public before trial... for reasons of ensuring rights to a fair trial... Thought you would know that too...!?

You're not a very good pretend lawyer... are you...!?

So you've got nothing? OK...I won't waste any more time.

The authorities have the evidence...

A convicted Terrorist attacks a Warder, ergo, Terrorist attack !

nicko wrote: A convicted Terrorist attacks a Warder,  ergo, Terrorist attack !

So, it's all in the definition. I thot so. Semantic arguments don't impress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute

I think your wrong Quill, But your entitled to your opinion ,as am I.

This is not the first time that a prison inmate serving time for terrorist offences has carried out a violent attack on a prison guard or on another inmate... but as almost all of these previous incidents have been treated as regular non terrorism related violent assaults, and this particular incident is being treated differently as a terrorist motivated incident, would clearly indicate that there is enough reason and evidence there for the authorities to be treating this incident as such.


If and when there are charges brought by the police, and there is a case brought before a court to decide... Then the evidence will be provided to the court for consideration...


That is due process here in UK...

nicko wrote:I think your wrong Quill, But your entitled to your opinion ,as am I.

One can be wrong about facts, but there is no such thing as wrong about logic. Take math, for example. I can be right, or wrong, in saying my math book is on the table before me. But I can never be wrong regarding what math says about 2 + 2 = 4. That is because the former statement speaks about a condition that can change. The latter speaks to an unchanging truth.

Logic takes many forms (not just math), including semantic argument. When you argue semantics you are just arguing definitions. It's like, is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? There is a difference, but who gives a shiet when you are discussing tomato-based recipes? Likewise, when asking whether a certain act is terrorism--now, in the present--who gives a sheit what the prisoner is originally charged with? In Kantian terms, there is no 'necessary connection' between this act and the former act.

Does the definition of this act rely on what the prisoner was originally charged with, or does this act have a distinction of its own? It's largely semantical (of, relating to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols), but it can lead one in different directions. For example, if this act had nothing to do with terrorism, but arose out of an intra-prison extortion scheme, calling it terrorism could mislead investigators into completely missing another crime.

Lawyer speak !

nicko wrote:Lawyer speak !

Yeah...or just plain ole logic. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lets-argue-semantics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-argument-linguistics-1689003