15-Year-Old Army Cadet Attacked With 'Makeshift Blowtorch' After Selling Poppies

by Guest Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:30 pm

A 15-year-old army cadet has been attacked with a "makeshift blowtorch" in Manchester, minutes after selling poppies for Remembrance Day.

The cadet was wearing his camouflage army uniform when he was blasted in the face by a man using an aerosol can and a lighter, the Manchester Evening News reported.

The man used the aerosol and lighter to spray flames at the cadet's face after approaching him on Saturday night, then walked away without saying anything, according to police.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/02/army-cadet-burned-face-poppies-manchester_n_6090002.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

by Guest Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:41 pm

Hmmmmmmmm

its only a few......

by Guest Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:32 am

Had this on another forum yesterday - unbelievably there was a poster suggesting that it was OK because the attacker thought the cadet was proper soldier.

by captain Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:09 pm

Being lied to and led on by the government then attacked by the public. How's this kid ever going to learn. Sad

by eddie Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:58 pm

Omg! My son is in the cadets!!
That could've been him.

What is going on??!

by Guest Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:56 pm

dont worry eddie....its only a few.....

by Ben Reilly Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:20 am

victorisnotamused wrote:dont worry eddie....its only a few.....

Yeah, that observation sounds even dumber every time it's repeated ... especially with a story like this one, where as far as I can tell, it wasn't even only a few, it was only one.

Let's just drag out a few more examples of cadets being assaulted on Remembrance Day though, and then we can ascend to the intellectual heights of debating whether it was something about the assailant's skin color or belief in a major world religion that made him behave this way ... 15-Year-Old Army Cadet Attacked With 'Makeshift Blowtorch' After Selling Poppies 3633442240

15-Year-Old Army Cadet Attacked With 'Makeshift Blowtorch' After Selling Poppies 3633442240

by Guest Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:31 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:dont worry eddie....its only a few.....

Yeah, that observation sounds even dumber every time it's repeated ... especially with a story like this one, where as far as I can tell, it wasn't even only a few, it was only one.

Let's just drag out a few more examples of cadets being assaulted on Remembrance Day though, and then we can ascend to the intellectual heights of debating whether it was something about the assailant's skin color or belief in a major world religion that made him behave this way ...

So what you are another one who is going to make out that someone spraying fire into the face of a child is no biggie.

Are you going to tell us that us parents who have children in the cadets are abusing them as well?

by Guest Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:25 pm

I do not think ben is stating that at all and is more in response to the time honoured response Victor does on such attacks.
You know very well Ben hates any such attacks and is not like that idiot on the other forum,. of which we all stood behind you and unfair to place Ben in the same category.

by eddie Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:36 pm

Brasidas wrote:I do not think ben is stating that at all and is more in response to the time honoured response Victor does on such attacks.
You know very well Ben hates any such attacks and is not like that idiot on the other forum,. of which we all stood behind you and unfair to place Ben in the same category.

l

What idiot on what forum?

by Guest Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:17 pm

@didge/ben - point taken, my apologies. I am just a touch upset over this - I take it as a direct threat to my children and any low life that suggests it is acceptable it going to get me after them.

I and didge are posting at a place called www.massdebate.club where there is a character (in the literal sense of the word) named cipher who has said parents who have children in cadets are sick and abusing them.
There is something a bit off about the place but its got more UK news than here.

by Guest Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:27 pm

No need to apologize to me Sphinx, I was appalled as much as you over the comments made, they were disgusting and so out of order, hence can understand anything on this topic is going to push buttons after that.
People like that are idiots that are generally not parents themselves, as they would never even say something like that.
We may have our political differences, but I know you have been through hell, yet still have belief, where others would give up. That you can and do overcome this, shows to me the qualities and strength you have. I actually find the fact you have suffered and then be able to raise 4 children, to be a tribute to your perseverance never to give up. It is a quality many could learn from of which I very much admire. You are a fabulous mother, never allow others to attempt to make you question that, as you are stronger and better than that.

by Guest Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:32 pm

Night all.
Yes I know, I can be a real softy at times, but yes I do care about many people, even when at odds with them in debate..

x

by eddie Thu Nov 06, 2014 10:16 pm

Brasidas wrote:Night all.
Yes I know, I can be a real softy at times, but yes I do care about many people, even when at odds with them in debate..

x

BEACAUSE you're a top bloke x

by Lone Wolf Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:14 am

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Yeah, that observation sounds even dumber every time it's repeated ... especially with a story like this one, where as far as I can tell, it wasn't even only a few, it was only one.

Let's just drag out a few more examples of cadets being assaulted on Remembrance Day though, and then we can ascend to the intellectual heights of debating whether it was something about the assailant's skin color or belief in a major world religion that made him behave this way ...

So what you are another one who is going to make out that someone spraying fire into the face of a child is no biggie.

Are you going to tell us that us parents who have children in the cadets are abusing them as well?

DON'T be so stupid, Sphinxy...

NOBODY here has said that.. You're just being silly in your baseless claims !
SINKING down to the Tommy/Puzzled/DependentThoughts method of illogical thoughts isn't a good look..

SHOW US ALL some evidence of the political or religious background of that cowardly assailant ? HAVE you some evidence to prove that he isn't simply yet another mental case ?
OF COURSE you haven't. You're simply jumping to conclusions without looking first.. bom

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:48 am

There is a very good reason why Sphinx reacted, as already stated above Lone Wolf.
Give her a break, as it is never nice to have such foul things stated to her, you would also be upset and angry.

by eddie Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:50 am

Brasidas wrote:There is a very good reason why Sphinx reacted, as already stated above Lone Wolf.
Give her a break, as it is never nice to have such foul things stated to her, you would also be upset and angry.

Here here didge.
I also feel afraid and worried for my son.

I completely get where sphinx is coming from x

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:58 am

Morning Eddie

That is because you are a fab mum.
I think most people are forgetting what has happened here, a young lad collecting for those who has fallen was disgustingly attacked. What physiological affect is this going to have on this poor lad, being attacked for doing something good and right.

xx

by Ben Reilly Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:56 am

Apparently the controversy on the right-end bullshit wing of humanity (i.e. the lesser evolved among us) is that the police described the assailant as ...

"Either black or Asian."

OH MY GOD GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK ALREADY. Honestly. "Black or Asian?" As though people described as either have a quite-similar skin color making them difficult to distinguish from one another? For fuck's sake, chaps!

Yeah, a guy here in Texas stole my wallet. He was either black or Mexican, couldn't tell in the fucking light, chappy. Yeah, you know -- one of those bad colors. Not like us good white people.

For heaven's sake, ladies and gentlemen, let us not fail to see the chicanery which is afoot!

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:00 am

I do not care what skin colour the assailant has ben, that again loses sight of the crime that has happened here. I agree with you that some will use this crime to promote their xenophobia and even worse use the victim, but we again should not lose site of the crime itself, where what is basically a child still being attacked for doing something noble and good.

by Ben Reilly Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:08 am

Absolutely. The crime against this poor kid shouldn't be diminished in any way.

At the same time, to turn it into an attack against an entire group of people is exploitative and cynical on the part of the racist and xenophobic -- not to mention almost unfathomably stupid. The Muslim-haters of the UK (and everywhere else) should be quite ashamed of what they've done to the legacy of Rigby, and no human being such as him should ever be forcibly transformed into a symbol or rallying point for such idiotically hateful, purely condemnable, and thoroughly nasty people.

by eddie Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:49 pm

Brasidas wrote:I do not care what skin colour the assailant has ben, that again loses sight of the crime that has happened here. I agree with you that some will use this crime to promote their xenophobia and even worse use the victim, but we again should not lose site of the crime itself, where what is basically a child still being attacked for doing something noble and good.

Exactly. Got sweet sod all to do with his colour. He's a shit no matter who he is

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:53 pm

The thing is if a Muslim had been attacked in such a way by a white man the police would immediately be considering a racial motive. They would not state they were open minded about motivation.

Why can they not consider the same when an "black or asian" man attacks a white child?

Why are things not treated equally?

by eddie Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:59 pm

sphinx wrote:The thing is if a Muslim had been attacked in such a way by a white man the police would immediately be considering a racial motive. They would not state they were open minded about motivation.

Why can they not consider the same when an "black or asian" man attacks a white child?

Why are things not treated equally?

I agree. I'm just waiting for him to be caught. I can't see any other motive than a religious one tbh.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:01 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Apparently the controversy on the right-end bullshit wing of humanity (i.e. the lesser evolved among us) is that the police described the assailant as ...

"Either black or Asian."

OH MY GOD GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK ALREADY. Honestly. "Black or Asian?" As though people described as either have a quite-similar skin color making them difficult to distinguish from one another? For fuck's sake, chaps!

Yeah, a guy here in Texas stole my wallet. He was either black or Mexican, couldn't tell in the fucking light, chappy. Yeah, you know -- one of those bad colors. Not like us good white people.

For heaven's sake, ladies and gentlemen, let us not fail to see the chicanery which is afoot!

Ben in the UK the descriptor "black or asian" is the authorities way of describing those from the middle east without doing so.

People are quite capable of telling the difference and do - but in a country where a suspect with suspects with distinctive birthmarks or tattoos can refuse to take part in an identification line up for a witness that described the tattoos because they are too distinctive the police cannot say "middle eastern" appearance because people might get the wrong idea about who is attacking them.

by Eilzel Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:02 pm

Both extremes are appalling here. The attack is horrible, regardless who did it. But it is a pity the anger towards the attacker is instantly distorted by one lot using this to go on the offensive against the Muslim community (even if only with sarcastic 'its only a few' comments), and another lot going responding on the defensive (it really is only a minority that do this!).

Can't we just for once express sympathies for the boy and anger toward the attacker who will hopefully face justice? People seem to care far more about attacking or defending Muslims out of instinct.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:08 pm

Eilzel wrote:Both extremes are appalling here. The attack is horrible, regardless who did it. But it is a pity the anger towards the attacker is instantly distorted by one lot using this to go on the offensive against the Muslim community (even if only with sarcastic 'its only a few' comments), and another lot going responding on the defensive (it really is only a minority that do this!).

Can't we just for once express sympathies for the boy and anger toward the attacker who will hopefully face justice? People seem to care far more about attacking or defending Muslims out of instinct.

The trouble is Eilzel I am scared that the hunt for the attacker wont be as thorough as it could be in case the hunt appears racist. In a county that allowed 1400 girls to be brutally abused for years to avoid the authorities looking racist I do not think that fear is unfounded.

by eddie Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:12 pm

sphinx wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Both extremes are appalling here. The attack is horrible, regardless who did it. But it is a pity the anger towards the attacker is instantly distorted by one lot using this to go on the offensive against the Muslim community (even if only with sarcastic 'its only a few' comments), and another lot going responding on the defensive (it really is only a minority that do this!).

Can't we just for once express sympathies for the boy and anger toward the attacker who will hopefully face justice? People seem to care far more about attacking or defending Muslims out of instinct.

The trouble is Eilzel I am scared that the hunt for the attacker wont be as thorough as it could be in case the hunt appears racist. In a county that allowed 1400 girls to be brutally abused for years to avoid the authorities looking racist I do not think that fear is unfounded.

The girl does have a point.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:12 pm

sphinx wrote:The thing is if a Muslim had been attacked in such a way by a white man the police would immediately be considering a racial motive. They would not state they were open minded about motivation.

Why can they not consider the same when an "black or asian" man attacks a white child?

Why are things not treated equally?

Nobody knows if this is even a Muslim though Sphinx, it clearly states that the offender seemed to be very drunk. It could still be a Muslim of course, but that factor then would make this person not very religious for a start. It is best they are caught.then the reason provided, but then again what ever the reason it is an individual that has done this and what ever his cause condemned. It could even be a racist attack, as I do not rule anything out

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:18 pm

sphinx wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Both extremes are appalling here. The attack is horrible, regardless who did it. But it is a pity the anger towards the attacker is instantly distorted by one lot using this to go on the offensive against the Muslim community (even if only with sarcastic 'its only a few' comments), and another lot going responding on the defensive (it really is only a minority that do this!).

Can't we just for once express sympathies for the boy and anger toward the attacker who will hopefully face justice? People seem to care far more about attacking or defending Muslims out of instinct.

The trouble is Eilzel I am scared that the hunt for the attacker wont be as thorough as it could be in case the hunt appears racist. In a county that allowed 1400 girls to be brutally abused for years to avoid the authorities looking racist I do not think that fear is unfounded.

But is it as thorough when there are racist attacks?

http://www.irr.org.uk/news/when-the-state-is-complicit-in-hate/

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:41 pm

pfffft...more L/W crapola

anyone want to lay odds on the attackers ethnicity
anyone want to lay odds on their "reasons"
anyone want to lay odds on them either being caught
or if they are caught, being charged with either race hate or terrorism

this was a deliberated attack by a person of a "type" upon someone wearing a uniform, whilst carrying out a function involved with our armed forces. The fact it was a cadet makes it worse in many ways doubless the ass hole is too big a coward to try that on a grown man......

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE MOTIVATION WAS????

Idiots

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:50 pm

The person was drunk.
It can be countless different reasons.
Hence keeping open minded, because your view could go away from finding the attacker, if they made a racial attack and are not Muslim.
Do you see how poor you are able to look at things Victor.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:19 pm

Brasidas wrote:
sphinx wrote:

The trouble is Eilzel I am scared that the hunt for the attacker wont be as thorough as it could be in case the hunt appears racist. In a county that allowed 1400 girls to be brutally abused for years to avoid the authorities looking racist I do not think that fear is unfounded.

But is it as thorough when there are racist attacks?

http://www.irr.org.uk/news/when-the-state-is-complicit-in-hate/

I am telling you what I feel and why.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:24 pm

sphinx wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

But is it as thorough when there are racist attacks?

http://www.irr.org.uk/news/when-the-state-is-complicit-in-hate/

I am telling you what I feel and why.

I understand that, but I am showing why it is prudent to not jump the gun, where also many victims of racist attacks get no justice for the crimes against them and even worse where the Police do little or nothing.
You were making comparisons based on this when the reality is as seen as bad here for racist victims.
This is a rare event Sphinx and I understand your concern, but again such attacks should not drive us to fear, which if this was a racist or Muslim extremist attack is part of the intent of the crime, to make people fear

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:55 pm

Brasidas wrote:The person was drunk.

correction......the person appeared to be drunk

It can be countless different reasons.
Hence keeping open minded, because your view could go away from finding the attacker, if they made a racial attack and are not Muslim.
Do you see how poor you are able to look at things Victor.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:56 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Brasidas wrote:The person was drunk.

correction......the person appeared to be drunk

It can be countless different reasons.
Hence keeping open minded, because your view could go away from finding the attacker, if they made a racial attack and are not Muslim.
Do you see how poor you are able to look at things Victor.

Do you cast staggering as not drunk?

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:56 pm

Brasidas wrote:The person was drunk.
It can be countless different reasons.
Hence keeping open minded, because your view could go away from finding the attacker,

Since I'm not engaged in looking for the idiot.......my view wont affect the findings ...will they

if they made a racial attack and are not Muslim.
Do you see how poor you are able to look at things Victor.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:58 pm

Brasidas wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

Do you cast staggering as not drunk?

staggering...or just "walking oddly"...which could have many reasons......including a desire to make identification more difficult

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:16 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Do you cast staggering as not drunk?

staggering...or just "walking oddly"...which could have many reasons......including a desire to make identification more difficult

Okay factor in the smell of alcohol and staggering, then would you constitute that as drunk?
I am talking here about your impression of seeing this, not speaking in hindsight as you are doing now.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:34 pm

yeah yeah...even if he WAS drunk.......what difference does it make???

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:37 pm

Plenty, because there maybe many factors as to why this attack happened. Again I do not rule anything out, which you should try to do the same, where instead you have already decided what happened.
If we took your approach, and that was not the motive for the crime, would then the Police investigation be taking the wrong path in finding the attacker?

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:46 pm

OK throw this into the mix for intellectual purposes.

Getting drunk removes inhibitions - it does not provoke new ideas. (yes I know it does other things but I am focusing on inhibition versus motivation)

Being drunk would get a straight guy to ask a girl out it would not result in him fancying men. It might result in a guy hiding his sexuality chatting up a man but that initial desire would have to be there to start off with.

So even if the guy was rip roaring drunk - the idea that a person in uniform should be attacked was inherent to the attacker. Maybe he would not have had the guts to do it if sober - maybe he would have been able to tell it was a child he was attacking - but the concept of the attack would have been there.

So what motivation is there that makes people in the uniform of the armed forces legitimate targets?

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:48 pm

Maybe he just attacked him because he was drunk, angry at something unknown to anyone and attacked the nearest person that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It maybe you are right and they did target the boy and needed alcohol to enable them to attack, who knows, it is why I do not discount any possibility.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:59 pm

Brasidas wrote:Maybe he just attacked him because he was drunk, angry at something unknown to anyone and attacked the nearest person that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It maybe you are right and they did target the boy and needed alcohol to enable them to attack, who knows, it is why I do not discount any possibility.

Lets not lean too far the opposite way in our attempt to be fair - we know the lad was not just the nearest person and it was not just wrong place wrong time. There was some other reasoning behind it.

You want to consider every possibility then it could be that the attacker had previously been bullied by a group in army uniform and was "getting revenge" - but it could also be a sympathy with this countries enemies and a desire to aid their cause.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:03 pm

Brasidas wrote:Plenty, because there maybe many factors as to why this attack happened. Again I do not rule anything out, which you should try to do the same, where instead you have already decided what happened.
If we took your approach, and that was not the motive for the crime, would then the Police investigation be taking the wrong path in finding the attacker?

you fail to see the point...I am NOT the police and therefore can sit with my suspicions

If at some point in the future it proves I was right then I'm vindicated...
If I'm wrong well that will be an anomaly

of course..If I am right we may never hear anything more about it
it will be buried quietly (all in the name of "comunity cohesion" of course)

and even if we do you will STILL find an excuse....

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:04 pm

sphinx wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Maybe he just attacked him because he was drunk, angry at something unknown to anyone and attacked the nearest person that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It maybe you are right and they did target the boy and needed alcohol to enable them to attack, who knows, it is why I do not discount any possibility.

Lets not lean too far the opposite way in our attempt to be fair - we know the lad was not just the nearest person and it was not just wrong place wrong time. There was some other reasoning behind it.

You want to consider every possibility then it could be that the attacker had previously been bullied by a group in army uniform and was "getting revenge" - but it could also be a sympathy with this countries enemies and a desire to aid their cause.

Sorry but you have taken the view that is not the reason of being the nearest based on what exactly?
Again a person if intoxicated will have their emotions enhanced 100%, thus if angry, over something, for example a relationship break up, the more this person has got drunk and wants to harm someone, that is then this person when the emotions reach a level of wanting to inflict pain . So it cannot be ruled out even if the probability is minimal.
Again it could be may reasons, some will have far more probability, where if premeditated, then the biggest probability would be an attack of hate around the view of the armed forces. Again I do not rule anything out though.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:07 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Plenty, because there maybe many factors as to why this attack happened. Again I do not rule anything out, which you should try to do the same, where instead you have already decided what happened.
If we took your approach, and that was not the motive for the crime, would then the Police investigation be taking the wrong path in finding the attacker?

you fail to see the point...I am NOT the police and therefore can sit with my suspicions

If at some point in the future it proves I was right then I'm vindicated...
If I'm wrong well that will be an anomaly

of course..If I am right we may never hear anything more about it
it will be buried quietly (all in the name of "comunity cohesion" of course)

and even if we do you will STILL find an excuse....

Oh grow up, are you now claiming I am debating to make a view to protect the attacker, based if they were a Muslim, get a grip.
This is debating around like any case to keep an open mind, yours is closed and irrationally based around a certainty in your eyes and views you have on Muslims.
If the attack was premeditated to attack this boy based on hate of the armed forces, then it should not be hidden and condemned by all, nobody is denying that, but you seem as Eilzel has stated more interested if the assailant is Muslim, than any thoughts for the victim.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:13 pm

we shall see...

<<>>>

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:24 pm

About what exactly?
If it is a Muslim you can make another sentence saying "its only a few"? What do you hope to achieve by that, more people to view Muslims with fear? Or see that this is minority of idiots, where you will of course argue it is loads basing this on no more than assumption you have of Muslims. Are all Muslims like this or even many? No, if this was the case no Muslim who has no fear of death, would be carrying this out daily en mass. That just does not happen. Who did this if you are correct, manipulates you to do exactly what they set out for you to do, cause a divide, where you both have the same wish, dislike and distrust of each other.
Hence why I said grow up.

I only care that the attacker is caught and that they get sent to jail, showing that such attacks are not tolerated and the victim sees justice. I though unlike you do not want to use this attack as a means to castigate Muslims, because you view them all through a dislike, one where you have a mistrust of all of them, which achieves nothing.

by Guest Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:31 pm

hmmm...

consider this possibility

can an individual carry out what amounts to an act of war on another individual
in other words are some offenses against the person "different" to "crime" because of the motivation??

by Sponsored content