Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ross
  • 13,454 comments
  • 769,584 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Does it really matter what he shouted? If he screamed Britain First, does that change anything? Are we going to lump all those who support a Britain First stance on one pile? If yes, can we lump all Muslims on one pile for every attack with a hint of Islam in it? Or every gun owner in the US after a thrown lead poisoning?
 
Does it really matter what he shouted? If he screamed Britain First, does that change anything? Are we going to lump all those who support a Britain First stance on one pile? If yes, can we lump all Muslims on one pile for every attack with a hint of Islam in it? Or every gun owner in the US after a thrown lead poisoning?
It is not clear where or when the hateful words were uttered. It may have been the scene of the crime, or it may have been at the scene of the arrest.

"In 2000 Lib Dem MP Nigel Jones was attacked by a man wielding a Samurai sword which resulted in the death of aid Andrew Pennington in Cheltenham."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/68...er-stabbed-shot-Birstall-West-Yorkshire-Leeds

Did the Cox assault go on for as much as 15 minutes, as I have heard? Where was "Andrew Pennington", indeed anybody at all, when she needed him?
 
Last edited:
It is not clear where or when the hateful words were uttered. It may have been the scene of the crime, or it may have been at the scene of the arrest.

Again. Does it matter?
 
So it's a definite then that he shouted Britain First and everything else is speculation?
Arguably everything about him is speculation, from what he said to his mental health status and his membership and purchases from two different white supremacist / neo-nazi groups.

Reportedly she received such a mountain of hate mail that she was offered, but laughed off, protection. Really? Why??
If by laughed it off you mean reported it to the police, who were investigating it and reviewing security measures!
 
Again. Does it matter?
Unfortunately, yeah, probably it does. Government needs to monitor popular whims and steer events into calmer waters. If a government leader becomes unpopular and is assassinated, maybe it's bad for business as usual? Motivation seems to be the thing to establish straightaway.
 
Does it really matter what he shouted? If he screamed Britain First, does that change anything? Are we going to lump all those who support a Britain First stance on one pile? If yes, can we lump all Muslims on one pile for every attack with a hint of Islam in it? Or every gun owner in the US after a thrown lead poisoning?

If the attacker is indeed a supporter of a political party described by Wikipedia as "British nationalist, British unionist, Eurosceptic, Christian fundamentalist, and fascist", then at the very least said political party deserves scrutiny as to how its rhetoric may or may not have inspired an individual to assassinate a politician from a political party that opposes said ideology.

Maybe he was just someone whose mental state meant he would have committed such an attack against his local Labour MP anyway; and could have shouted "Liberal Democrats" or "I hate all politicians" or "notice me Jodie Foster" while committing said attack if his ideology happened to lean that way. Maybe he was an individual with violent tendencies who was directly inspired by the rhetoric used by Britain First to commit such an attack, even if Britain First themselves officially oppose such actions.

The truth likely lies somewhere on a spectrum between those two things, but where it lies is a matter for police investigation.

Comparing supporters of Britain First who don't commit violent attacks to Muslims who aren't extremists or gun owners who don't use their firearms irresponsibly or nefariously is not a like and like comparison. Muslims and gun owners are both extremely broad categories of people, while Britain First supporters are supporters of a small, specific political party with a specific ideology which uses specific rhetoric.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Britain First are in anyway responsible for this attack, even indirectly; but if a potential connection exists, it's right for it to be scrutinised.
 
If the attacker is indeed a supporter of a political party described by Wikipedia as "British nationalist, British unionist, Eurosceptic, Christian fundamentalist, and fascist", then at the very least said political party deserves scrutiny as to how its rhetoric may or may not have inspired an individual to assassinate a politician from a political party that opposes said ideology.

Maybe he was just someone whose mental state meant he would have committed such an attack against his local Labour MP anyway; and could have shouted "Liberal Democrats" or "I hate all politicians" or "notice me Jodie Foster" while committing said attack if his ideology happened to lean that way. Maybe he was an individual with violent tendencies who was directly inspired by the rhetoric used by Britain First to commit such an attack, even if Britain First themselves officially oppose such actions.

The truth likely lies somewhere on a spectrum between those two things, but where it lies is a matter for police investigation.

Comparing supporters of Britain First who don't commit violent attacks to Muslims who aren't extremists or gun owners who don't use their firearms irresponsibly or nefariously is not a like and like comparison. Muslims and gun owners are both extremely broad categories of people, while Britain First supporters are supporters of a small, specific political party with a specific ideology which uses specific rhetoric.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Britain First are in anyway responsible for this attack, even indirectly; but if a potential connection exists, it's right for it to be scrutinised.
So I take it then that if you think it's ok to scrutinize what appears to be a lone wolf because he may have been associated with an organization, with Muslims committing atrocities across the globe and proclaiming to be doing so in the name of their faith as defined in their holy book, you then have no trouble scrutinizing the religion and it's followers?
 
Did you not read what I said?

Comparing supporters of Britain First who don't commit violent attacks to Muslims who aren't extremists or gun owners who don't use their firearms irresponsibly or nefariously is not a like and like comparison. Muslims and gun owners are both extremely broad categories of people, while Britain First supporters are supporters of a small, specific political party with a specific ideology which uses specific rhetoric.


If an individual of a certain faith commits an attack of some sort, perhaps scrutinising their particular congregation might be necessary to see if there are any further extremist links or what have you, but not their religion as a whole. Similarly, if an individual carries out an apparently politically motivated assassination, it might be necessary to scrutinise the political climate that surrounds them and the political organisations they are linked to in whatever way in order to see what might have lead to a situation in which someone might commit such a crime; but it shouldn't be necessary to scrutinise a politician from Brazil or Indonesia over something that happened in Denmark unless some explicit connection between them and the incident emerged, as it is unlikely they would have any connection to it.
 
Did you not read what I said?

If an individual of a certain faith commits an attack of some sort, perhaps scrutinising their particular congregation might be necessary to see if there are any further extremist links or what have you, but not their religion as a whole. Similarly, if an individual carries out an apparently politically motivated assassination, it might be necessary to scrutinise the political climate that surrounds them and the political organisations they are linked to in whatever way in order to see what might have lead to a situation in which someone might commit such a crime; but it shouldn't be necessary to scrutinise a politician from Brazil or Indonesia over something that happened in Denmark unless some explicit connection between them and the incident emerged, as it is unlikely they would have any connection to it.
I did read it. Sounds to me like you're just making up an arbitrary and contradictory set of rules to justify why we should look into one group and not the other. Dozens of Muslims (so called if you prefer) are killing hundreds of people around the world but don't investigate the Muslim organizations they belong to because different. One guy, who is, by the sounds of it, suffering from mental illness, commits a single murder and we have to investigate his organization even though they immediately denounce his actions and don't advocate violence.

How about the police just turn any murderer's life upside down and investigate everything they ever said or did or anyone they ever knew, no matter who he/she is, and let the chips fall where they may?
 
Dozens of Muslims (so called if you prefer) are killing hundreds of people around the world but don't investigate the Muslim organizations they belong to because different.

You've made a good point; it's about the organisation (or religious sub-flavour) rather than every single other member of the religion that a terrorist/killer claims to represent.

A Britain First fan doesn't represent all flavours of christiness, for example.
 
One guy, who is, by the sounds of it, suffering from mental illness, commits a single murder and we have to investigate his organization even though they immediately denounce his actions and don't advocate violence.
I don't think you are in any way even close to understanding what Britain First are like.

They have not only threatened direct action against a number of people, have dressed in military uniforms (which is not legal in UK for political parties), have a history of violent threats to the public and journalists, organised military style 'training camps' (their definition) and operate an echo chamber within the social media they use. An echo chamber in which violent comment and feedback is not only left in place but encouraged via admin likes.

Britain First may not have directed him to do this, but they are certainly an organisation that do nothing at all to condemn threats of violence against those they see as 'traitors' (again their terminology).

"They think they can get away with ruining our country, turning us into a Third World country, giving away our homes, jobs and heritage, but they will face the wrath of the Britain First movement, make no mistake about it!

We will not rest until every traitor is punished for their crimes against our country.

And by punished, I mean good old fashioned British justice at the end of a rope!"
Source:http://indy100.independent.co.uk/ar...-opponents-at-the-tower-of-london--Z16fxI0Pvl
Source:http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britain-fi...run-london-mayor-wants-hang-opponents-1521415

That was a comment directed at the other candidates in an election they were contesting!

How exactly is threatening to hang your political opponents not advocating violence?

What doesn't help them is a photo of an protest they carried out near the suspects home which shows a Britain First activist that has a very, very strong resemblance to the suspect. For a group as paranoid as Britain First are it would be almost impossible for them to not have know an activist at one of the protests they hold.

I also find in interesting that you mention his history of mental illness, but not his history of ties to far right and neo-nazi groups with strong anti-EU views, or his apparent purchase of material on how to make home made guns, subscriptions to neo-nazi and white supremacists newsletters (both European and American) and the reported finding of neo-nazi and nazi memorabilia at his home?

I'm sorry to say that you have no idea at all what Britain First represent, stand for or are willing to say to attempt to achieve the aims they want (which is effectively a white Christian-only Britain (and that's without pointing out the links they have to Unionist terrorist groups in Northern Ireland).
 
Last edited:
I did read it. Sounds to me like you're just making up an arbitrary and contradictory set of rules to justify why we should look into one group and not the other. Dozens of Muslims (so called if you prefer) are killing hundreds of people around the world but don't investigate the Muslim organizations they belong to because different. One guy, who is, by the sounds of it, suffering from mental illness, commits a single murder and we have to investigate his organization even though they immediately denounce his actions and don't advocate violence.

How about the police just turn any murderer's life upside down and investigate everything they ever said or did or anyone they ever knew, no matter who he/she is, and let the chips fall where they may?

I'm not advocating investigating them. I'm advocating subjecting them scrutiny. I'm not saying that they should face arbitrary criminal investigation following a crime they had no apparent direct involvement with; I'm saying they should be scrutinised as to why an apparent supporter of theirs has engaged in such violence and how their rhetoric may have influenced his actions. A lot of other people need to be scrutinised in the current British political climate, on all sides of the fence, but with regards to this particular incident, Britain First require it the most.

And as for the mental illness thing, that doesn't change the fact that he was allegedly a neo-nazi. Maybe he would still have committed such an attack if that wasn't the case, but mental health doesn't automatically make people neo-nazis any more than it makes them artists or Confucians.

I'm sure plenty of Islamist extremists have mental health problems aplenty, but I don't see many people jumping on board saying that some controversial fundamentalist Imam who might have influenced the attacker but didn't actually advocate violence doesn't need scrutiny because the attacker was mentally ill.

And as for Britain First not advocating violence, they made a statement after the attack stating that they "hope this person is strung up by the neck from the nearest lamp post; that's the way [they] view justice"; which sounds an awful lot like an advocation of violence to me.

You might argue that that's an advocation of tough justice or whatever blah blah blah... But fundamentally, that is violent rhetoric, and rhetoric like that is what can tip people, be they neo-nazis, islamists, or animal rights activists into performing extreme and undesirable acts.

Overall, the only person I directly blame for this attack is the attacker himself, and if he really does have serious mental health problems or something, then maybe one could argue his responsibilties were diminished; but everyone has to take a long hard look at themselves and ask "how can we make our society less violent? Less divisive? More open to debate and less open to the sham that politics in our society has become that has both driven up apathy and extreme unfounded views?" Britain First may or may not have inspired this attack, but everyone else in the system has to ask how British politics got so toxic to begin with. The answer is Murdoch, The Express, and The Daily Mail, if anyone's wondering, with the Mirror deserving a slap on the wrist too.
 
Jo Cox's murderer gives his name in court as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain' :rolleyes:

Although this guy has a history of mental illness, it would be wrong to dismiss this murder as if it were a consequence of mental illness without knowing the full story.

Also, The Conservatives will not contest the by-election brought about by Jo Cox's murder...
 
Jo Cox's murderer gives his name in court as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain' :rolleyes:

Although this guy has a history of mental illness, it would be wrong to dismiss this murder as if it were a consequence of mental illness without knowing the full story.

Also, The Conservatives will not contest the by-election brought about by Jo Cox's murder...


That to me sounds very political. So I'm going to class him as a terrorist affliating himself with an extremist group, that don't represent a majority of course. But I know what Britain First are like. And whilst I don't believe they'd ever kill someone they are pretty hard with their stance.
 
Jo Cox's murderer gives his name in court as 'Death to traitors, freedom for Britain' :rolleyes:

Although this guy has a history of mental illness, it would be wrong to dismiss this murder as if it were a consequence of mental illness without knowing the full story.
It'd be wrong to dismiss it as anything without knowing the full story. If he didn't have any Britain First connections (and at the moment they're only alleged) and hadn't shouted any slogan (and at the moment that's only alleged too) it'd not be a leap to suggest that someone who gave his name like that was not entirely sane. We don't even know what Mair's mental health issues are either - he may be a paranoid schizophrenic subject to care in the community, or he may be seeing a counsellor and on mood balancing meds because he was touched up by Savile in the 70s.

I suspect that there is a lot more to this than meets anyone's eye - and the air of paranoia and partisan hate generated by certain parts of the media and certain parties (looking at you, UKIP) may be a causative factor.

Also, The Conservatives will not contest the by-election brought about by Jo Cox's murder...
At the moment nor will anyone else - Libdems, Green and UKIP have also decided not to contest it.

It's a nice gesture, but I'm not sure how well it serves democracy. It's a relatively safe Labour area in any case (it had been Conservative, but with tiny majorities, Labour since 1997 with huge majorities) so it's not likely that anyone but Labour would win whether there is a campaign or not, but people should still have that choice. Perhaps the parties should field candidates but not allow them to campaign?
 
It'd be wrong to dismiss it as anything without knowing the full story. If he didn't have any Britain First connections (and at the moment they're only alleged) and hadn't shouted any slogan (and at the moment that's only alleged too) it'd not be a leap to suggest that someone who gave his name like that was not entirely sane. We don't even know what Mair's mental health issues are either - he may be a paranoid schizophrenic subject to care in the community, or he may be seeing a counsellor and on mood balancing meds because he was touched up by Savile in the 70s.

I suspect that there is a lot more to this than meets anyone's eye - and the air of paranoia and partisan hate generated by certain parts of the media and certain parties (looking at you, UKIP) may be a causative factor.


At the moment nor will anyone else - Libdems, Green and UKIP have also decided not to contest it.

It's a nice gesture, but I'm not sure how well it serves democracy. It's a relatively safe Labour area in any case (it had been Conservative, but with tiny majorities, Labour since 1997 with huge majorities) so it's not likely that anyone but Labour would win whether there is a campaign or not, but people should still have that choice. Perhaps the parties should field candidates but not allow them to campaign?
Or he may be an extreme radical who firmly believes what he has done and stands by what he's is saying.
 
And at the same time, although it seems extremely unlikely, there is the possibility that it was someone else. Innocent until proven guilty and all.
 
Last edited:
Also possible. He may be a militant vegan or any one of hundreds of possibilities - that's rather the point of a trial after all.
He could be but I don't recall his court outburst mentioning butternut squash.

It did however use language that is common on BF and similar groups social media echo chambers.

Right now we don't know, but if speculating some routes have most to support them than others.
 
And at the same time although it seems extremely unlikely there is the possibility that it was someone else. Innocent until proven guilty and all.
As he was immediately detained by the police having committed an offence, at this point a trial is only to determine what it is he's guilty of, or indeed if he's guilty of anything, rather than if it was him or not.
He could be but I don't recall his court outburst mentioning butternut squash.
He may have been shouting 'Broccoli First' and was upset about Cox being in the Romaine camp.

It's interesting that the Battle of the Thames has now been swept under the rug. Last week, everyone participating on either side was a lunatic, but when it came out that Cox was involved all the commentators who were so ready to deride the event have gone quiet about it...
 
As he was immediately detained by the police having committed an offence, at this point a trial is only to determine what it is he's guilty of, or indeed if he's guilty of anything, rather than if it was him or not.
Well someone did it. So if he is found not guilty then someone else did it.
 
Well someone did it. So if he is found not guilty then someone else did it.
No, that's not quite how it works here.

When someone has been detained in the immediate aftermath of an offence, the trial doesn't exist as a mechanism for finding out who did it. It's to determine what crime it is he's guilty of - if anything - having done so.

I think he's being tried for murder at the moment. It may transpire that he's not guilty of murder - but that doesn't mean he didn't kill her. It's hard to believe but he may even not be guilty of anything, even though he killed her... That's law for you - "Innocent until proven guilty" refers to crimes rather than offences.
 
Last edited:
So you are saying he might be found innocent through insanity?
Not guilty, rather than innocent, but yes... ish. Diminished capability is, I think, the preferred term.

Or he may be completely in possession of his faculties and be a big racist murdering bastard. That's why we have this trial - rather than to find out if he did it or not.
 
Not guilty, rather than innocent, but yes... ish. Diminished capability is, I think, the preferred term.
Diminished responsibility*, as filing for insanity is very narrow and he may not fit the criteria. But he may not even be eligible for diminished responsibility due to him not being 'substantially impaired' enough to being unable to form a rational judgement.
 
At the moment nor will anyone else - Libdems, Green and UKIP have also decided not to contest it.

It's a nice gesture, but I'm not sure how well it serves democracy. It's a relatively safe Labour area in any case (it had been Conservative, but with tiny majorities, Labour since 1997 with huge majorities) so it's not likely that anyone but Labour would win whether there is a campaign or not, but people should still have that choice. Perhaps the parties should field candidates but not allow them to campaign?
The far right party Liberty UK have said they will contest the seat, after reporting on the Jo Cox's murder as the "Death of a Fool" and blaming it on the Labour party.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tion-bnp-politician-jack-buckby-a7089966.html
 
I read social media speculation that Britain First has retconned 6 months worth of tweets and deleted all the ones which contained, photographed or had articles mentioning Thomas Mair.
 
Back