Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: normal rules on April 01, 2021, 05:20:21 pm
-
This poor woman was brutally murdered following being followed home in Devon last year. The 24 yr old was convicted of her murder today. A 24 yr old failed asylum seeker from Iraq. I have not heard of any vigils or protests relating to this. This fecker cut her body up and disposed of it in a nearby alleyway because he panicked that he might get deported. My fecking blood is boiling. You won’t hear this on the national news tonight.
-
This poor woman was brutally murdered following being followed home in Devon last year. The 24 yr old was convicted of her murder today. A 24 yr old failed asylum seeker from Iraq. I have not heard of any vigils or protests relating to this. This fecker cut her body up and disposed of it in a nearby alleyway because he panicked that he might get deported. My fecking blood is boiling. You won’t hear this on the national news tonight.
He should be deported to Iraq to serve his sentence. Pay Iraq the money that it would cost to keep him in prison there for 30 years. Should they decide to execute him they can keep the balance of the cost.
Job done.
-
Unfortunately, it doesn’t fit into the right kind of murder by the right kind of murderer to stoke unrest, therefore won’t be headline news.
My thoughts are with her family.
-
Well it's on the main news page of the BBC website
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-56569863
-
It's the lead UK news story on The Guardian website.
It is the lead story on the Independent website.
But don't let facts get in the way of an ideological rant.
-
Just on BBC news, second story.
-
Yeah but for how long?
-
Shows the vigil they had in Exeter as well. A lengthy news piece in fact.
-
If he was a failed asylum seeker and he was still here because of some dogooder and legal team they should also be held responsible for his actions and banned from practicing law and do time.
-
My first post to second post is over 2 minutes, and I typed while it was on, so I'd say about 3 minutes on the story.
-
I meant how long will it be in the news.
-
I saw it myself on the bbc news website. My point is there will not be a General public meltdown and outpouring of grief over it.
I’m not totally naive to the fact that such a brutal murder has not gone unnoticed by the media. I’m furious that the woke brigade won’t jump on the woe is me/ us bandwagon like they did over one or two other murders.
-
NR.
You said it won't be on the national news. It IS leading across the national news.
-
Good, in which case I stand corrected. Let’s see what comes of it shall we.
-
It was obvious to me what Normal was getting at. As I’m sure it must have been for anyone who actually took in all of the post.
-
He also hadn't heard of any vigils, there was one held. What is he getting at?
-
I’ve asked myself if it was a rant, and yes it was. Im good with that.
As far as Ideology goes though we all fall within one or many ideologies don’t we. That’s what makes us what we are.
Myself, I’m a bit conservative and a bit populist. I don’t class myself as particularly liberal.
Im Certainly not radical. Never have been .
-
He also hadn't heard of any vigils, there was one held. What is he getting at?
I’ll tell you next week, when you’ve forgotten about it.
-
NR has given a response, why wait a week?
-
Then why are you asking me?
-
And whilst I had not heard of a vigil, that of course does not mean there have not been any, which it seems there has been.
This murder has been carried out by someone who should not have even been in this country and was, as such, totally avoidable.
But then we live in a country where right wing fanatics are allowed in t he Met Police. So we should not quibble about a few murderers coming To our shores should we?
Your taxes will pay for his prison food. And he Will never get deported because he is Iraqi.
-
Of course, all murderers should be treated with equal contempt, and their victims should be given the same amount of sympathy and support, but they're not.
Had the Murderer in this case been a White man, and the victim a Black girl, social media would have been flooded with outrage far more than it is, and that includes this forum.
It is as though some people are frightened to comment on this particular act of evil in fear of being called a racist.
-
Indeed. All murderers are equal it seems, but some more equals than others.
-
The left don't know what to do with that news story.
Doesn't fit with their narrative, just like the grooming gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale etc.
Gets swept under the carpet
-
It's the lead UK news story on The Guardian website.
It is the lead story on the Independent website.
But don't let facts get in the way of an ideological rant.
Just fact checked that, it's not the lead story on either of those websites!
Infact it's not even on the front page of either.
***Disinformation ****
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
-
Well it's on the main news page of the BBC website
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-56569863
Regional. Not national
-
Well it's on the main news page of the BBC website
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-56569863
Regional. Not national
It is on the front page of the BBC News web page.
What exactly are you trying to achieve here?
-
Web site front pages aren’t quite the same as traditional front page news though, are they?
Yes it is on the first page, but after the Neo Nazi copper, George Floyd’s girlfriend and a Corona virus update.
-
What I find disconcerting is the CCTV footage ,It clearly shows her being led away under restraint n the middle of Exeter city centre, says a lot about the quality of the operators!
-
Yeah but for how long?
They've found the body, they've convicted the perpetrator, how long do you expect it to be in the headlines when there's nothing new to say?
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
-
I don’t expect it to stay in the news at all, Glyn. I thought I’d made that clear.
-
Yeah but for how long?
They've found the body, they've convicted the perpetrator, how long do you expect it to be in the headlines when there's nothing new to say?
How long was the Everard story in the headlines?
Wasnt exactly swept under carpet.
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
-
Web site front pages aren’t quite the same as traditional front page news though, are they?
Yes it is on the first page, but after the Neo Nazi copper, George Floyd’s girlfriend and a Corona virus update.
I wasn’t sure what to think about this Belton so I googled all three of the news articles quoted on the thread.
The story doesn’t appear to be the main article on any of them.
As you say, it is on the first page but each online article has a link to open if you want to read more.
More than likely there wouldn’t have been room for it on the front page of a traditional actual newspaper.
-
Yeah but for how long?
They've found the body, they've convicted the perpetrator, how long do you expect it to be in the headlines when there's nothing new to say?
How long was the Everard story in the headlines?
Wasnt exactly swept under carpet.
Dunno, because I don't know the story you're talking about. Shows how big that's been in the media, doesn't it?
Just looked it up. I would imagine that was in the headlines for a long time because there kept on being new stuff to report. I had heard about the case but the name didn't register.
-
Yeah but for how long?
They've found the body, they've convicted the perpetrator, how long do you expect it to be in the headlines when there's nothing new to say?
How long was the Everard story in the headlines?
Wasnt exactly swept under carpet.
Dunno, because I don't know the story you're talking about. Shows how big that's been in the media, doesn't it?
Just looked it up. I would imagine that was in the headlines for a long time because there kept on being new stuff to report.
Sarah everhard the woman murdered in London.
You know.
-
Yeah but for how long?
They've found the body, they've convicted the perpetrator, how long do you expect it to be in the headlines when there's nothing new to say?
How long was the Everard story in the headlines?
Wasnt exactly swept under carpet.
Dunno, because I don't know the story you're talking about. Shows how big that's been in the media, doesn't it?
Just looked it up. I would imagine that was in the headlines for a long time because there kept on being new stuff to report.
Sarah everhard the woman murdered in London.
You know.
To me, it was the 'Copper kills someone' case. Like I said, the name didn't register.
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
-
Yeah but for how long?
They've found the body, they've convicted the perpetrator, how long do you expect it to be in the headlines when there's nothing new to say?
How long was the Everard story in the headlines?
Wasnt exactly swept under carpet.
Dunno, because I don't know the story you're talking about. Shows how big that's been in the media, doesn't it?
Just looked it up. I would imagine that was in the headlines for a long time because there kept on being new stuff to report.
Sarah everhard the woman murdered in London.
You know.
To me, it was the 'Copper kills someone' case. Like I said, the name didn't register.
Well, in this "illegal immigrant kills someone" case.
The press coverage, and public outcry has been a fraction of the "copper kills someone" case.
Why?
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.
It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
-
Yeah but for how long?
They've found the body, they've convicted the perpetrator, how long do you expect it to be in the headlines when there's nothing new to say?
How long was the Everard story in the headlines?
Wasnt exactly swept under carpet.
Dunno, because I don't know the story you're talking about. Shows how big that's been in the media, doesn't it?
Just looked it up. I would imagine that was in the headlines for a long time because there kept on being new stuff to report.
Sarah everhard the woman murdered in London.
You know.
To me, it was the 'Copper kills someone' case. Like I said, the name didn't register.
Well, in this "illegal immigrant kills someone" case.
The press coverage, and public outcry has been a fraction of the "copper kills someone" case.
Why?
I keep telling you, it's a six months old story apart from the verdict!!
-
Yeah but for how long?
They've found the body, they've convicted the perpetrator, how long do you expect it to be in the headlines when there's nothing new to say?
How long was the Everard story in the headlines?
Wasnt exactly swept under carpet.
Dunno, because I don't know the story you're talking about. Shows how big that's been in the media, doesn't it?
Just looked it up. I would imagine that was in the headlines for a long time because there kept on being new stuff to report.
Sarah everhard the woman murdered in London.
You know.
To me, it was the 'Copper kills someone' case. Like I said, the name didn't register.
Well, in this "illegal immigrant kills someone" case.
The press coverage, and public outcry has been a fraction of the "copper kills someone" case.
Why?
I keep telling you, it's a six months old story apart from the verdict!!
It wasn't 6 months old, 6 months ago.
Where were the stories then?
-
Yeah but for how long?
They've found the body, they've convicted the perpetrator, how long do you expect it to be in the headlines when there's nothing new to say?
How long was the Everard story in the headlines?
Wasnt exactly swept under carpet.
Dunno, because I don't know the story you're talking about. Shows how big that's been in the media, doesn't it?
Just looked it up. I would imagine that was in the headlines for a long time because there kept on being new stuff to report.
Sarah everhard the woman murdered in London.
You know.
To me, it was the 'Copper kills someone' case. Like I said, the name didn't register.
Well, in this "illegal immigrant kills someone" case.
The press coverage, and public outcry has been a fraction of the "copper kills someone" case.
Why?
I keep telling you, it's a six months old story apart from the verdict!!
It wasn't 6 months old, 6 months ago.
Where were the stories then?
In the papers perhaps? How about you go and look and then tell us all about how ridiculously small they were, eh?
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.
It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
I said it was the lead UK story in the Guardian. The very attachment I posted shows it as the lead story in the UK News section of The Guardian website.
I said it was the lead story on the Independent webpage. It was but it had slipped down a few hours later when I took that screen grab.
You said it wasn't on the front page of either the Independent or Guardian site. This two screen grabs in that attachment are of the front pages of the Guardian and Independent websites.
Wilts said it was carried on the BBC News page. You contradicted him. But it was and still is on the main BBC News webpage.
I'll ask again. What precisely are you trying to achieve here?
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.
It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.
Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
I said it was the lead UK story in the Guardian. The very attachment I posted shows it as the lead story in the UK News section of The Guardian website.
I said it was the lead story on the Independent webpage. It was but it had slipped down a few hours later when I took that screen grab.
You said it wasn't on the front page of either the Independent or Guardian site. This two screen grabs in that attachment are of the front pages of the Guardian and Independent websites.
Wilts said it was carried on the BBC News page. You contradicted him. But it was and still is on the main BBC News webpage.
I'll ask again. What precisely are you trying to achieve here?
I said it wasn't the lead story on either website, or the BBC, and it wasn't.
My point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
I said it was the lead UK story in the Guardian. The very attachment I posted shows it as the lead story in the UK News section of The Guardian website.
I said it was the lead story on the Independent webpage. It was but it had slipped down a few hours later when I took that screen grab.
You said it wasn't on the front page of either the Independent or Guardian site. This two screen grabs in that attachment are of the front pages of the Guardian and Independent websites.
Wilts said it was carried on the BBC News page. You contradicted him. But it was and still is on the main BBC News webpage.
I'll ask again. What precisely are you trying to achieve here?
I said it wasn't the lead story on either website, or the BBC, and it wasn't.
My point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.
Ahem.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Make your fecking mind up.
It's because it's a six-months old story that it wouldn't get much coverage today, as I've explained.
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.
It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.
Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.
Yes, it had coverage. But a fraction of the everhard murder.
Also why no public outcry on the scale of the everhard murder?
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.
It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.
Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.
Yes, it had coverage. But a fraction of the everhard murder.
Also why no public outcry on the scale of the everhard murder?
Ask the fecking public.
Still waiting to hear what you'd fill the front page with btw.
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
I said it was the lead UK story in the Guardian. The very attachment I posted shows it as the lead story in the UK News section of The Guardian website.
I said it was the lead story on the Independent webpage. It was but it had slipped down a few hours later when I took that screen grab.
You said it wasn't on the front page of either the Independent or Guardian site. This two screen grabs in that attachment are of the front pages of the Guardian and Independent websites.
Wilts said it was carried on the BBC News page. You contradicted him. But it was and still is on the main BBC News webpage.
I'll ask again. What precisely are you trying to achieve here?
I said it wasn't the lead story on either website, or the BBC, and it wasn't.
My point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.
Ahem.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Make your fecking mind up.
It's because it's a six-months old story that it wouldn't get much coverage today, as I've explained.
Yes, I've literally repeated myself.
So?
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.
It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.
Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.
I’ve just done that with ‘Glyn Wigley’.
You are a ‘Countdown’ dark horse, aren’t you, Glyn?
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.
It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.
Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.
Yes, it had coverage. But a fraction of the everhard murder.
Also why no public outcry on the scale of the everhard murder?
Ask the fecking public.
Still waiting to hear what you'd fill the front page with btw.
I'm asking you
-
Of course, all murderers should be treated with equal contempt, and their victims should be given the same amount of sympathy and support, but they're not.
Had the Murderer in this case been a White man, and the victim a Black girl, social media would have been flooded with outrage far more than it is, and that includes this forum.
It is as though some people are frightened to comment on this particular act of evil in fear of being called a racist.
Not true.
This case recieved very little attention, it only really came to the public eye in contrast to the Everard case which had attracted such a high level of attention.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/26/criminal-death-black-sisters-didnt-cause-public-outcry-sarah/
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
I said it was the lead UK story in the Guardian. The very attachment I posted shows it as the lead story in the UK News section of The Guardian website.
I said it was the lead story on the Independent webpage. It was but it had slipped down a few hours later when I took that screen grab.
You said it wasn't on the front page of either the Independent or Guardian site. This two screen grabs in that attachment are of the front pages of the Guardian and Independent websites.
Wilts said it was carried on the BBC News page. You contradicted him. But it was and still is on the main BBC News webpage.
I'll ask again. What precisely are you trying to achieve here?
I said it wasn't the lead story on either website, or the BBC, and it wasn't.
My point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.
Ahem.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Make your fecking mind up.
It's because it's a six-months old story that it wouldn't get much coverage today, as I've explained.
Yes, I've literally repeated myself.
So?
No, you've contradicted yourself.
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.
It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.
Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.
Yes, it had coverage. But a fraction of the everhard murder.
Also why no public outcry on the scale of the everhard murder?
Ask the fecking public.
Still waiting to hear what you'd fill the front page with btw.
I'm asking you
As I haven't outcried anything, I'm the wrong person to ask!
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
I said it was the lead UK story in the Guardian. The very attachment I posted shows it as the lead story in the UK News section of The Guardian website.
I said it was the lead story on the Independent webpage. It was but it had slipped down a few hours later when I took that screen grab.
You said it wasn't on the front page of either the Independent or Guardian site. This two screen grabs in that attachment are of the front pages of the Guardian and Independent websites.
Wilts said it was carried on the BBC News page. You contradicted him. But it was and still is on the main BBC News webpage.
I'll ask again. What precisely are you trying to achieve here?
I said it wasn't the lead story on either website, or the BBC, and it wasn't.
My point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.
Ahem.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Make your fecking mind up.
It's because it's a six-months old story that it wouldn't get much coverage today, as I've explained.
Yes, I've literally repeated myself.
So?
No, you've contradicted yourself.
Go back and re read it old lad, I've not contradicted myself in the slightest.
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.
It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.
Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.
Yes, it had coverage. But a fraction of the everhard murder.
Also why no public outcry on the scale of the everhard murder?
Ask the fecking public.
Still waiting to hear what you'd fill the front page with btw.
I'm asking you
As I haven't outcried anything, I'm the wrong person to ask!
Exactly.
-
Go back and re read it old lad, I've not contradicted myself in the slightest.
My point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.
It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.
Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.
Yes, it had coverage. But a fraction of the everhard murder.
Also why no public outcry on the scale of the everhard murder?
Ask the fecking public.
Still waiting to hear what you'd fill the front page with btw.
I'm asking you
As I haven't outcried anything, I'm the wrong person to ask!
Exactly.
Yes. Exactly why I said you should ask the public.
-
Go back and re read it old lad, I've not contradicted myself in the slightest.
My point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
:lol:
Literally the same. Put your glasses on old boy
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.
It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.
Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.
I’ve just done that with ‘Glyn Wigley’.
You are a ‘Countdown’ dark horse, aren’t you, Glyn?
I just did that too Belton.
On the table it shows, what does a type P indicate?
Just asking.
-
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.
See the attached.
Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim?
The point yet again the double standards of the press.
I said it was the lead UK story in the Guardian. The very attachment I posted shows it as the lead story in the UK News section of The Guardian website.
I said it was the lead story on the Independent webpage. It was but it had slipped down a few hours later when I took that screen grab.
You said it wasn't on the front page of either the Independent or Guardian site. This two screen grabs in that attachment are of the front pages of the Guardian and Independent websites.
Wilts said it was carried on the BBC News page. You contradicted him. But it was and still is on the main BBC News webpage.
I'll ask again. What precisely are you trying to achieve here?
I said it wasn't the lead story on either website, or the BBC, and it wasn't.
My point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.
You used a capitalised DISINFORMATION footer in your response to an entirely correct post that I had made.
That is reprehensible behaviour on any topic, but wrongly implying that someone who you disagree with is deliberately lying on a topic like this is simply disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
Go back and re read it old lad, I've not contradicted myself in the slightest.
My point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
:lol:
Literally the same. Put your glasses on old boy
How can they be the same when Everard wasn't murdered six months ago? You started off whinging about the conviction not getting as much coverage today as Everard did, and then when I pointed out there was very little new to report today it suddenly became about the press coverage six months ago. Then when BST came back, it was all about today's reportage again. The same, eh?
-
Of course, all murderers should be treated with equal contempt, and their victims should be given the same amount of sympathy and support, but they're not.
Had the Murderer in this case been a White man, and the victim a Black girl, social media would have been flooded with outrage far more than it is, and that includes this forum.
It is as though some people are frightened to comment on this particular act of evil in fear of being called a racist.
Not true.
This case recieved very little attention, it only really came to the public eye in contrast to the Everard case which had attracted such a high level of attention.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/26/criminal-death-black-sisters-didnt-cause-public-outcry-sarah/
What do you mean not true? Just because you search the web and find an example in the Telegraph that is contrary to what is a common attitude on social media these days, doesn't mean my post is not true!
My post is, sadly, absolutely true!
-
It's hardly suprising that the murder of a woman or anyone for that matter cannot hold the front page for any length of time when around 4 women are murdered each week.
-
I’m going to refresh my thoughts on this. Firstly I’m slightly saddened that this post has degenerated into a personal slagging match between some of the more high profile users of this forum. There seems to be a pattern forming in this regard. Is it just banter or something more sinister. The former i hope.
This murder from 1 sep last year in Devon I initially commented on was truly horrific. It would have been highly reported last year in the South West, i have no doubt. I have heard nothing of it until today though and i generally keep up to date with such things. It’s my job.
So when I read the headlines about this today I was shocked. I was taken aback at the absolute horrific nature of her death and dismemberment and disposal. Then I was angry. All the recent media and public outcry over murder in London and close to home in Hull and yet this particular murder has gone nationally un noticed. And I’m not talking about now upon conviction, I’m talking about 6 months ago when it was committed. I want to know why. It has been eluded to already. The offender victim relationship perhaps does not fit with the political narrative that the media are currently subscribing to. Illegal immigrant of colour kills white indigenous female and then cuts her body up before dumping it in a Nearby alleyway and woods. This did not make the national news At the time . This did not attract widespread protest 6 months ago about foreign national murderers being in this country illegally. This murder could and should have been avoided.
And before anyone suggests that this murder went to trial and as such things would have been kept out of the public domain so as not to frustrate justice, ask yourself how the current kidnap and murder involving The copper has unfolded?
And I speak as a person who has been involved in murder enquiries for some years. Many women are sadly murdered every year in this country. The vast majority are domestic murders with partner suspects. Up and down cases with little or no aggravating circumstances. The fact that this was an illegal entrant, the fact she was cut up I. The manner she was and disposed of . This is a high profile murder that should have had the highest profile media and public attention. It wasn’t. And for that I am shocked, saddened angry and disgusted.
I’m unsure who to blame. The govt? The media? The justice system? Or maybe this is just an endemic issue we now find ourselves in as a society. Due to political correctness and the fear of speaking out. I just down know. All I know is I am very pissed about it.
Lastly, this maggot will go to prison at our expense, and at some point he will be let out and no doubt given a different identity. Housed in a bland estate miles away from Exeter, given a meaningless job and a pair of new trainers. His life will go on. He will never be deported.
He is not the first, he won’t be the last. And I talk from experience.
-
Maybe plug-in 'September 2020 and Lorriane Cox murdered' to google and see what comes up NR.
-
Sydneyrover, Sarah Everard is a household name .
Lorraine Cox wasn’t until recently. The fact that you have had to google her name to see if it was reported confirms this to me. With the greatest respect, did you have any knowledge of this case until recently?
This may have been publicised At the time. But there was no huge public outpouring of grief and anger and protest as a result of her murder at the time.
Im afraid google threads do not translate to public feeling or widespread national knowledge.
-
''This murder from 1 sep last year in Devon I initially commented on was truly horrific. It would have been highly reported last year in the South West, i have no doubt. I have heard nothing of it until today though and i generally keep up to date with such things. It’s my job''
If the general public don't click then the story gets shunted down the page, it goes for all news and is a problem created by google and other online behemoths taking most of the revenue thereby forcing news outlets to generate revenue by clickbait.
I just counted at least 6 national outlets reporting on it in 09/2020
-
by the way I'm not saying this is right/correct but just how it is.
-
And to put some very basic numbers to this. If you google Lorraine cox murder, it comes back with 1.5 million thread hits. If you google Sarah Everard it comes back with over 4 times this amount. Why?
A police officer (and I use this term loosely) and uk resident committing a kidnap and murder of a woman attracts more social recognition and interest in this country than an illegal immigrant who should not even be here and as such was an avoidable murder.
Both cases are tragic. One could and should have been prevented.
Sarah Everard was murdered.
Lorraine Cox was murdered and failed by our Home Office.
-
Does a failed asylum seeker = an illegal immigrant?
Akim Mangori ''failed asylum seeker liable liable to deportation''
''Deportation is a statutory power given to the Home Secretary. Under section 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971, a person who is not a British citizen (referred to here as 'a foreign national') is liable to be deported from the UK if the Home Secretary deems it to be 'conducive to the public good'.''
-
You may be out of your depth here chum. I work with Immigration enforcement daily. Just because we have immigration laws saying persons are liable to deportation, it does not means this happens. Deportation only occurs when the host nation, in this case Iraq, is happy to take back a resident AND that resident consents to deportation. I have never known an Iraqi consent to being deported. Ever. Once they flee what is considered to be a worn torn country they effectively give up,their natural rights as a citizen. To return as a deportee with consent would effectively sign their own death warrant as they are treated like national traitors. It’s the same for Iran, Syria Eritrea and other countries .
So once they get to the uk, they are effectively safe . As a developed country with humans rights we don’t subscribe to sending people back to effectively be tortured and killed. We are stuck with them. Until such time as any uk govt writes off some very draconian rendition laws. It won’t happen. Trust me.
-
you didn't answer the question chummy
-
https://awhsolicitors.co.uk/articles/immigration/uk-deportation-rules/
-
you didn't answer the question chummy
To apply for asylum means he must have crossed the threshold with immigration as an illegal. This could mean he was either a clandestine entrant or he came here initially legally but overstayed his welcome or broke rules such as working or being deceitful.
Either way, to be an applicant for asylum means he has a status where he is an illegal immigrant. He either came here illegally, or by virtue of his conduct once here he has become illegal.
-
You are calling him an ''illegal immigrant'' is that accurate? he may be or not which is why I asked.
Here's a simpler definition
''Illegal immigrants in the UK include those who have:
entered the UK without authority
entered with false documents
overstayed their visas
worked or studied on a tourist visa/ non-immigrant visa waiver
entered into forced or fraudulent marriage[8][9][10]
had their marriages terminated or annulled''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=The%20most%20significant%20change%20in,ranging%20between%2044%2C000%20and%20144%2C000.
-
Normal. I have to disagree with one of your points - this thread can’t possibly have descended into a personal slagging match because if it had, then admin would have taken down the offensive posts really quickly.
-
You may be out of your depth here chum. I work with Immigration enforcement daily. Just because we have immigration laws saying persons are liable to deportation, it does not means this happens. Deportation only occurs when the host nation, in this case Iraq, is happy to take back a resident AND that resident consents to deportation. I have never known an Iraqi consent to being deported. Ever. Once they flee what is considered to be a worn torn country they effectively give up,their natural rights as a citizen. To return as a deportee with consent would effectively sign their own death warrant as they are treated like national traitors. It’s the same for Iran, Syria Eritrea and other countries .
So once they get to the uk, they are effectively safe . As a developed country with humans rights we don’t subscribe to sending people back to effectively be tortured and killed. We are stuck with them. Until such time as any uk govt writes off some very draconian rendition laws. It won’t happen. Trust me.
Well they were deported and repatriated under Labour - must be the soft on crime Tories
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11816974
-
Normal. I have to disagree with one of your points - this thread can’t possibly have descended into a personal slagging match because if it had, then admin would have taken down the offensive posts really quickly.
Maybe admin have better things to do than keeping an eye on childish behaviour 24 hours a day over grown men that should know better
-
Normal. I have to disagree with one of your points - this thread can’t possibly have descended into a personal slagging match because if it had, then admin would have taken down the offensive posts really quickly.
Maybe admin have better things to do than keeping an eye on childish behaviour 24 hours a day over grown men that should know better
I’d like to think so too. But a clamp down is a clamp down.
-
Of course, all murderers should be treated with equal contempt, and their victims should be given the same amount of sympathy and support, but they're not.
Had the Murderer in this case been a White man, and the victim a Black girl, social media would have been flooded with outrage far more than it is, and that includes this forum.
It is as though some people are frightened to comment on this particular act of evil in fear of being called a racist.
Not true.
This case recieved very little attention, it only really came to the public eye in contrast to the Everard case which had attracted such a high level of attention.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/26/criminal-death-black-sisters-didnt-cause-public-outcry-sarah/
What do you mean not true? Just because you search the web and find an example in the Telegraph that is contrary to what is a common attitude on social media these days, doesn't mean my post is not true!
My post is, sadly, absolutely true!
I didn't have to search very far it was only on the TV news the other day.
Black families were making the point that the murder of black women generally goes unnoticed by the media in this country and they contrasted the response to this case with the Everard case.
It's ironic you're saying it would be higher profile whilst at the same time there is a group bringing to attention the reality that the media generally don't pay much attention to the murder of black people.
-
Do you HONESTLY think if a Black woman had been murdered by a White policeman the media reaction would have been less than it was in the Everard case? If you do you are kidding yourself. The reaction would have been much, MUCH more if that was the case.
-
That's just your personal opinion BB,
I do think the Everard thing was for some reason a particularly high profile case. Possibly because he happened to be a policeman but I don't see why that was particularly significant when he's gone criminally insane.
I also I think it was because she was a middle class lady with friends and family who were organised and were able to kick up a massive fuss.
Murders these days genereally don't get as much attention as they used to, this one was unusual.
-
Of course it is my opinion, and it is an easy opinion to have simply because it is absolutely true. Probably that is why you didn't answer the question.
Of course the Everard case received so much media attention because it was a policeman that did it.
Of course she got more media attention because she was middle class, probably for the same reason why the McCann's got more media attention than the Needham's when their child went missing.
Of course murders these days generally don't get as much attention as they used to. These days they generally only get media attention if they suit a particular agenda.
-
To answer your question BB yes, I honestly think there would have been less attention. I'm not saying it wouldn't have been headline news but I don't think it would've been the top story.
Because there would not have been the same sense of outrage, generated by friends and family.
-
Ok, then all I can say is I absolutely and completely disagree with you. I think you are unequivocally wrong.
-
Well it's all hypothetical BB,
But as it turns out there was a horrific murder of two black sisters and it got hardly any attention at the time. I base my opinion on that.
-
Strange how these discussions go.
Folk opine that something won't be in the news...despite it being in the news.
Then other folk dive in to hypothesise whether something that hasn't happened would be in the news.
-
To answer your question BB yes, I honestly think there would have been less attention. I'm not saying it wouldn't have been headline news but I don't think it would've been the top story.
Because there would not have been the same sense of outrage, generated by friends and family.
Maybe there wasn't a political agenda going on at the time that could use the story to support the agenda?
Here's a question for you.
Were there riots when Lee Rigby got his head hacked off by those two evil bas**rds?
Would there have been riots if two members of the British army had hacked the head off a radical Islamist?
-
You're getting into a whole new sphere bringing islamist extremism into it BB.
It's a very different proposition.
-
It's the same principle.
-
What principle?
Race and religion are different, is your beheaded islamist white?
-
Right, let's try and simplify my point. Let's say the killing of Lee Rigby was down to two radical Islamists protesting against his Christian religion. There was no rioting in the streets following his slaughter.
Now, let's swap the scenario and it was two Christian soldiers who slaughtered a radical Islamist. Do you think there would have been rioting in the streets?
-
What's the principle behind all this, again?
-
Point of fact. We as a nation sent troops into two Muslim countries, unleashing wars that led to maybe a million Muslims dying. A few of them in extra-judicial murders. I don't recall there being riots here over it.
-
Are British soldiers generally Christian? Was Lee Rigby? Most British people aren't Christian these days, so are soldiers? Were the British soldiers black? Are the Islamist terrorists really Muslims? Lee Rigby's family say they aren't.
How does this relate to the media coverage of women in the UK?
What's the underlying principle?
-
RD, you're not going to answer the question and I'm not going to waste any more time trying to reason my point with you.
-
I didn't understand your reasoning BB, that's all.
I'd give you an answer if you could tell me how the two hypothesis are related and explain what the principle you're getting at is.
-
Are British soldiers generally Christian? Was Lee Rigby? Most British people aren't Christian these days, so are soldiers? Were the British soldiers black? Are the Islamist terrorists really Muslims? Lee Rigby's family say they aren't.
How does this relate to the media coverage of women in the UK?
What's the underlying principle?
Sounds like ‘Soap’ is about to start.
-
Alright,
I'll try and answer. If Lee Rigby was killed for his Christian religion, which he might not have had by radical Islamists because he was Christian, when it was probably because he was a soldier but anyway. And the Christian British public, who generally aren't very Christian, didn't riot, then would if the roles were reversed a Muslim minority riot if Christian soldiers, which they probably wouldn't be, murdered an Islamist who many claim aren't actually Muslim, riot?
I have no idea.
-
Just to point out, the Sarah Everard case was front page news long before the main suspect was revealed to be police. There was a very public appeal to try and find her and it captured people's attention. Now, why that was I'm not sure. There's probably an element of truth to the thought that it was a London case, so on the doorstep of the national media types who report on this stuff. But to try and tie political motivations to the coverage of it is wide of the mark and deeply cynical in my view.
This Lorraine Cox case is tragic. I hadn't heard of it until recently. It's possible there were some reporting restrictions in place that weren't there for the Everard case. It also seems that this poor woman was more vulnerable. I would guess that any lack of coverage is down to the profile of the victim rather than the murderer, sadly.
-
Point of fact. We as a nation sent troops into two Muslim countries, unleashing wars that led to maybe a million Muslims dying. A few of them in extra-judicial murders. I don't recall there being riots here over it.
BST, weren't there more than a million people marching in London in protest at the invasion of Iraq?
-
Riots, SS.
-
To answer your question BB yes, I honestly think there would have been less attention. I'm not saying it wouldn't have been headline news but I don't think it would've been the top story.
Because there would not have been the same sense of outrage, generated by friends and family.
Maybe there wasn't a political agenda going on at the time that could use the story to support the agenda?
Here's a question for you.
Were there riots when Lee Rigby got his head hacked off by those two evil bas**rds?
Would there have been riots if two members of the British army had hacked the head off a radical Islamist?
Nail on head. But this is a country where you can be hounded out of your job and have your family and your own life put at risk for showing schoolkids a drawing.
-
Riots, SS.
All riots start off as peaceful protests, but become riots either when the Police become heavy handed, or Rent-a-mob get involved.
There were plenty of riots during the BLM protests.
-
Riot is an overused word in the context of civil disobediance.
It is very rarely charged as it is pretty much an admission by law enforcement that there has been a complete and utter breakdown of law and order, to the extent that has long lasting effects on local communities.
Violent disorder is the much more utilised piece of the public order act.
it may sound like semantics but for Riot to be even considered as a prosecution proceedings may be commenced only by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The decision to charge riot should be discussed with the Chief Crown Prosecutor or Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor.
you may wonder why:
The riots of August 2011 in cities across England were unprecedented in their
geographical scale. Rioting began in Tottenham on Saturday, 6 August, spread to other
parts of London on 7 and 8 August and to cities outside London, notably Birmingham,
Manchester and Liverpool, on 8 and 9 August. Riots have happened before in England and
other parts of mainland Britain, on occasion involving significant violence and damage to
property, in particular in Liverpool and Brixton in the 1980s. But they have been relatively few
in number and in a small number of places at any one time. August 2011 was the first time
that rioting had broken out in many places at the same time, and caused such widespread
damage to property. The riots took everyone by surprise: the police, the insurance industry,
central and local Government and, of course, the people living and working in the areas
concerned.
One consequence of the riots was to put the spotlight on the Riot (Damages) Act which
requires the police to pay compensation to those whose property is damaged in a riot. The
Act dates from 1886 and has been applied sparingly since then.
The Act was reviewed in 2013 and it was recommended that Police should still be liable for any damage caused during incidents declared to be riots. Thats why Riot is rarely charged.
-
Riots, SS.
All riots start off as peaceful protests, but become riots either when the Police become heavy handed, or Rent-a-mob get involved.
There were plenty of riots during the BLM protests.
BB was hypothesising about what might have happened if a soldier had violently killed a Muslim. He implied there would have been riots.
I said that British soldiers violently killed many Muslims in what are now widely accepted as illegal wars. There were no violent protests in the UK in response.
-
BST. Have you considered the possibility that the world is completely different now from how it was in 2003? If so, have you also considered that it is very possibly different now because of the invasion of Iraq that year?
-
Bentley Bullet.
Confirming tropes since 2003
-
Riots, SS.
All riots start off as peaceful protests, but become riots either when the Police become heavy handed, or Rent-a-mob get involved.
There were plenty of riots during the BLM protests.
BB was hypothesising about what might have happened if a soldier had violently killed a Muslim. He implied there would have been riots.
I said that British soldiers violently killed many Muslims in what are now widely accepted as illegal wars. There were no violent protests in the UK in response.
Politicians send us to war, the soldiers do what they are told. I suggest you take this one up with Tony Blair.
-
AL.
That's totally irrelevant to the point I was making.
-
Is it possible to kill someone without being violent?
-
Is it possible to kill someone without being violent?
Poison?
-
Is it possible to kill someone without being violent?
Bore them to death watching Millwall's negative football this season.
-
Is it possible to kill someone without being violent?
Bore them to death watching Millwall's negative football this season.
F*cking hell, we Rovers fans would have all been dead weeks ago.
-
Don't forget to support the women and girls in your life.
''Reporting on women’s safety: ‘We tell the stories that have been ignored’
Our senior news reporter writes about exposing violence and abuse – and how shared parental leave could make things better''
https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2021/apr/13/reporting-on-womens-safety-we-tell-the-stories-that-have-been-ignored