[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Where is the media attention... Where's the outcry?

Another female MP was due to be murdered, who are these people and why can't the 22yr old involved be named?...


An alleged neo-Nazi has appeared in court charged with plotting to murder a Labour MP with a machete.

The 22-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been charged with preparing an act of terrorism by allegedly buying a “Gladius Machete” – a type of weapon used by Celtic tribes and Roman legions – for the purpose of murdering Rosie Cooper.

The defendant, from Lancashire, is also accused of making threats to kill a female police officer.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8274521.html

I cannot answer your question concerning why one particular 'defendant' has not been named - perhaps BitOnTheSlide has answered correctly - but I DO agree with you Kizzy that there has NOT been the publicity to my knowledge which this case deserves - especially after the poor Jo Cox tragedy.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

See, I used to think it was about the media pushing an agenda and wanting to portray things a certain way... But I've more recently started to think, does the media really want anything other than to make money and sell as many copies as possible? Does the media not just go with what's popular?

So it's not that the media "wants to sell" an image of the brown-immigrant-monster-on-your-street... It's just that they know that that's what their readers want to hear. If they start veering away from the accepted narrative of their regular consumers, then people will spit their cornflakes and get their morning outrage elsewhere.

People don't want to hear that "Little James Born And Bred Known His Parents Since He Was A Nipper" has become a violent thug. That upsets their comfortable worldview. They want to hear that strange others from faraway places are the ones to fear.

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. Fear sells newspapers and fear and ignorance is almost always interlinked hence why most newspapers won't refer to crimes like this as terrorism, because they want their boogeyman to have brown skin and to quote the Quran. It's simply more profitable to appeal to people's prejudices when it comes to profiting from their fear.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. Fear sells newspapers and fear and ignorance is almost always interlinked hence why most newspapers won't refer to crimes like this as terrorism, because they want their boogeyman to have brown skin and to quote the Quran. It's simply more profitable to appeal to people's prejudices when it comes to profiting from their fear.

As I said perspective - prejudice comes in all shapes and sizes and is not limited to one skin colour. Idealism of any kind has its blind spot and will see exactly what it wants to see and ignore and discredit what it doesn’t. Ignorance is thriving all over the show as can be seen by those on both sides of the divide. So sanctomonious holier than though simply doesn’t cut it.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

As I said perspective - prejudice comes in all shapes and sizes and is not limited to one skin colour.

Nobody said it did.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

As I said perspective - prejudice comes in all shapes and sizes and is not limited to one skin colour. Idealism of any kind has its blind spot and will see exactly what it wants to see and ignore and discredit what it doesn’t. Ignorance is thriving all over the show as can be seen by those on both sides of the divide. So sanctomonious holier than though simply doesn’t cut it.

I didn't say it wasn't? I'm not quite sure what your issue is with what I said, can you clarify?

[parmnion]

Chuck them in beside all the asian rape gangs and shut the door.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I didn't say it wasn't? I'm not quite sure what your issue is with what I said, can you clarify?

Such comments are loaded with bias. Right/left is not really the issue when it comes to violence and terrorism and has far more to do with character. Some are simply pre-disposed to aggression and violence and will hide behind whatever ideology, political or otherwise, that suits.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Such comments are loaded with bias. Right/left is not really the issue when it comes to violence and terrorism and has far more to do with character. Some are simply pre-disposed to aggression and violence and will hide behind whatever ideology, political or otherwise, that suits.

'Extreme Right Wing Terrorism' is loaded with bias? Would you say the same about other classifications of terrorism? Say, 'Islamic Terrorism?'

[kirklancaster]

COLOUR - whether BLACK, BROWN, PINK or WHITE does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

RELIGION - whether ROMAN CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEWISH or MUSLIM does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

So if that news concerns yet another gang of brown-skinned, Pakistani, Muslims who have groomed children for sex in yet another part of the UK, or yet another solitary, white-skinned Roman Catholic Priest sexually abusing boys, then that news is going to be reported.

When the same crimes are REPEATEDLY committed by the same TYPES - whether brown-skinned Pakistani Muslims or white-skinned Roman Catholic Priests - then the READER will draw his/her OWN conclusions and formulate his/her OWN opinions.

I know that I do.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Well said Kirk

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

the most obvious reason for him not being named is that he is the subject of another pending or ongoing trial. Does everything have to be some sort of conspiracy these days?

Oh good point, I hadn't thought of that but it makes sense.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

COLOUR - whether BLACK, BROWN, PINK or WHITE does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

RELIGION - whether ROMAN CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEWISH or MUSLIM does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

So if that news concerns yet another gang of brown-skinned, Pakistani, Muslims who have groomed children for sex in yet another part of the UK, or yet another solitary, white-skinned Roman Catholic Priest sexually abusing boys, then that news is going to be reported.

When the same crimes are REPEATEDLY committed by the same TYPES - whether brown-skinned Pakistani Muslims or white-skinned Roman Catholic Priests - then the READER will draw his/her OWN conclusions and formulate his/her OWN opinions.

I know that I do.

Great post Kirk.

[Withano]

Its funny isnt it. People always complain about entire religions when the terrorist has one, but when it comes to yet another group of (presumably) non-religious right wing men, you never hear people go on about how religion is vital cos look what the non-religious blokes do.

I think a lot of truth comes out in what people do not say.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

COLOUR - whether BLACK, BROWN, PINK or WHITE does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

RELIGION - whether ROMAN CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEWISH or MUSLIM does NOT sell newspapers.

What SELLS newspapers is NEWS.

So if that news concerns yet another gang of brown-skinned, Pakistani, Muslims who have groomed children for sex in yet another part of the UK, or yet another solitary, white-skinned Roman Catholic Priest sexually abusing boys, then that news is going to be reported.

When the same crimes are REPEATEDLY committed by the same TYPES - whether brown-skinned Pakistani Muslims or white-skinned Roman Catholic Priests - then the READER will draw his/her OWN conclusions and formulate his/her OWN opinions.

I know that I do.

Very idealogical but not very realistic.

If the news itself was enough to sell newspapers then tabloids like The Sun, The Daily Mail and all the other trash would not be the best selling newspapers. Instead, you would have very plain newspapers reporting on the news in a neutral fashion but that's not the case, every story has a spin and that spin is dependant on the target audience it's aimed at.

Look at the Jo Cox shooting, that was an act of terrorism, the police treated it as such yet you still get some newspapers that refuse to report Thomas Mair as a terrorist, instead they'll call him a disturbed individual or a gunman because the term 'terrorist' is reserved to what their idea of a terrorist is and a white non-muslim face does not fit that narrative when it comes to a lot of newspapers because it doesn't fit their readers' views.

News does not sell newspapers. Fear, outrage and confirmation bias is what truly sells newspapers. It's just the way things are. If it wasn't then the way the news is presented would be completely different.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

Its funny isnt it. People always complain about entire religions when the terrorist has one, but when it comes to yet another group of (presumably) non-religious right wing men, you never hear people go on about how religion is vital cos look what the non-religious blokes do.

I think a lot of truth comes out in what people do not say.

Remind us how many people have been murdered by So-called Islamic terrorists throughout Europe recently and how many by so-called right-wing terrorists.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Remind us how many people have been murdered by So-called Islamic terrorists throughout Europe recently and how many by so-called right-wing terrorists.

Several for both, but thanks for further proving my point.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Withano

Its funny isnt it. People always complain about entire religions when the terrorist has one, but when it comes to yet another group of (presumably) non-religious right wing men, you never hear people go on about how religion is vital cos look what the non-religious blokes do.

I think a lot of truth comes out in what people do not say.

Well you are missing the gaping point that one sort of terrorism is done as an ideology in the name of religion and the other is done due to a non religious ideology based on racism and extreme nationalism. So yes when terrorism is done in the name of religion then the religious idealogy promoting it gets a grilling. How or why would religion be relevant when the terroism was not related to religious idealogy?

Also in recent years terrorism related to religious idealogy has been on a much larger scale which makes it a larger focal talking point and bigger news. Weve not had many racists bombing rock concerts and running round Westminster Bridge with knives stabbing people at random. (Random members of the public I mean). Attacks of the racist kind seem to be more personal than public in the current climate which make them less of a public focal point. That isn't necessarily right but that's how it is. If the white supremists aren't a gang of Catholics claiming to do it for their faith and shouting hail Mary's why would religion come up? Religion did come up more with regard the IRA when they were active though that was also strongly about republicanism so the religion was more of a background discussion. Nazis were not affiliated to one particular religion but they did persecute one particular religious group.

On a personal level I find the God told me to do it type of idea for hurting others much harder to comprehend. But committing violence on others for any reason is vile and unacceptable.

[bitontheslide]

it was a big news item when a terrorist went on a killing spree on london bridge, it was a big news item when a terrorist murdered Jo Cox. I fail to see how this means the press have a specific agenda. They focus on the level of threat and the impact as they always do.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Well you are missing the gaping point that one sort of terrorism is done as an ideology in the name of religion and the other is done due to a non religious ideology based on racism and extreme nationalism. So yes when terrorism is done in the name of religion then the religious idealogy promoting it gets a grilling. How or why would religion be relevant when the terroism was not related to religious idealogy?

Also in recent years terrorism related to religious idealogy has been on a much larger scale which makes it a larger focal talking point and bigger news. Weve not had many racists bombing rock concerts and running round Westminster Bridge with knives stabbing people at random. (Random members of the public I mean). Attacks of the racist kind seem to be more personal than public in the current climate which make them less of a public focal point. That isn't necessarily right but that's how it is. If the white supremists aren't a gang of Catholics claiming to do it for their faith and shouting hail Mary's why would religion come up? Religion did come up more with regard the IRA when they were active though that was also strongly about republicanism so the religion was more of a background discussion. Nazis were not affiliated to one particular religion but they did persecute one particular religious group.

On a personal level I find the God told me to do it type of idea for hurting others much harder to comprehend. But committing violence on others for any reason is vile and unacceptable.

Just speaks volumes to me that the people trying desperately hard to avoid the topic are usually incredibly vocal on terrorism threads.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Where is the media attention... Where's the outcry?

Another female MP was due to be murdered, who are these people and why can't the 22yr old involved be named?...


An alleged neo-Nazi has appeared in court charged with plotting to murder a Labour MP with a machete.

The 22-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been charged with preparing an act of terrorism by allegedly buying a “Gladius Machete” – a type of weapon used by Celtic tribes and Roman legions – for the purpose of murdering Rosie Cooper.

The defendant, from Lancashire, is also accused of making threats to kill a female police officer.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8274521.html

We all know that the Media have their own agendas.

Hopefully this Terrorist will get a life sentence like all Terrorists should serve.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Very idealogical but not very realistic.

If the news itself was enough to sell newspapers then tabloids like The Sun, The Daily Mail and all the other trash would not be the best selling newspapers. Instead, you would have very plain newspapers reporting on the news in a neutral fashion but that's not the case, every story has a spin and that spin is dependant on the target audience it's aimed at.

Look at the Jo Cox shooting, that was an act of terrorism, the police treated it as such yet you still get some newspapers that refuse to report Thomas Mair as a terrorist, instead they'll call him a disturbed individual or a gun man because the term 'terrorist' is reserved to what their idea of a terrorist is and a white non-muslim face does not fit that narrative when it comes to a lot of newspapers because it doesn't fit their readers' views.

News does not sell newspapers. Fear, outrage and confirmation bias is what truly sells newspapers. It's just the way things are. If it wasn't then the way the news is presented would be completely different.

Not so, I'm afraid.

You are talking about Demographics.

Tabloids have ALWAYS outsold the Broadsheets well before ISIS existed, or indeed before Muslims became 'newsworthy' because of various developments concerning groups of them in the UK over recent years.

And the reason for this is demographics;

The Sun is a lightweight easy to read newspaper which is favoured by the 'Working Class' and so-called 'Precariat' generally non-working classes.

The Daily Mail is more 'Upper Working Class' and 'Middle Class' whilst more 'Serious' Newspapers such as The Times still appeal more to the 'Upper-Middle' and 'Upper Classes'.

Because there are far more 'Working Class' and 'Precariat Class' people and far more 'Middle Class' people in the UK than there are 'Upper Class the newspapers which you brand 'Trash' will ALWAYS sell more than their more 'serious' counterparts.

In the case of poor Jo Cox's murder, I AGREE that a few newspapers DID display great bias in their reporting of what SHOULD have been facts but were instead NOT because honesty took second-place behind pushing those particular newspapers political Agendas, but - although you will not agree because of your own politics - those offending newspapers were mainly Left-Wing.

I believe that the evidence shows that Jo's killer Thomas Mair WAS and IS mentally ill whilst also showing him to have had definite links to Far Right organisations those organisations were NOT outlawed as 'Terrorist' organisations until AFTER this horrific murder, so to be precise, those newspapers (and any others) were WRONG to claim that Mair was a 'Terrorist in the TRUE sense of the word.

It is also relevant and very TELLING that despite comments made by the Crown Prosecution Service and the trial Prosecutor, Mair was NOT charged nor tried under ANY terrorism offence and also telling is the fact that Mair WAS accepted as being 'Mentally Ill' by the court.

Equally as telling - no matter what links Mair might have had with Far Right extremists - is the TRUTH behind claims that Mair shouted 'Britain First' when perpetrating the murder:

The FIRST and ORIGINAL claim that Mair shouted those words hailed from Aamir Tahir - a local dry cleaner who later ADMITTED that he was NOT even at the scene and that he had 'simply heard the allegation as second-hand information'.

Whilst another KEY witness, Hicham Ben Abdallah - who WAS at the scene - has said that he heard no such shout of 'Britain First' from Mair, and SURELY Mr Hitcham Ben Abdullah can be relied upon as a TRUTHFUL man because if he was NOT, then he would have every reason to damn Mair as belonging to a Right Wing Terrorist group by claiming that Mair DID shout that phrase.

Another 'anomaly' regarding another key witness, Graeme Howard who claimed to live on Bond Street near to the Murder Scene, is that no trace of any person of that name could be found on that short street.

So - YES - Jo Cox's callous murder was horrific AND an 'ACT' of Terror, but whether it was perpetrated by a 'Terrorist' or just a mentally ill lone murderer who had terrorist aspirations and affinities depends upon one's OWN particular 'Political Persuasion' and those of whichever newspaper one buys.

In any event, your claim that certain newspapers have refused to call Mair a 'Terrorist' because; "a white non-muslim face does not fit that narrative when it comes to a lot of newspapers because it doesn't fit their readers' views" does not actually 'sit' with your other claim that these same 'trash' newspapers 'sensationalise' news merely to sell newspapers, because if that was true, they would have buried Mair under 'Terrorist' and 'Neo Nazi' labels regardless of the colour of his skin or his ethicity.

I have also noted instances where these same 'Trash' newspapers held back from using words such as 'Terrorist' in certain murders committed by Muslim 'Extremists' or Non-Muslims who held Muslim Extremist sympathies, where those murderers WERE also mentally ill, so I'm afraid on this subject Dezzy, we will have to agree to disagree.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Withano

Just speaks volumes to me that the people trying desperately hard to avoid the topic are usually incredibly vocal on terrorism threads.

Well perhaps that is because you want it to. If that makes you happy go for it

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

it says pretty clearly he can't be named for legal reasons, which could be any number of things. It's not like he is not going to be tried/sentenced. Any terrorism is wrong, whoever does it and its treated equally by the courts, no matter the colour of skin.

I was losing the will to live till I reached this post.

The law doesn't care what colour you are. A terrorist is a terrorist. And as Bots says, there are any number of reasons why he cannot be named. There's a lot more focus on Islamic terrorism because there is a lot more of it right now so there is a lot of focus on it. It's not like everyone ignored the fact that the murder of Jo Cox was a Right wing act of terror.

[Cherie]

There is no outcry because they didn't succeed, there have been a few trials recently where the crime was intercepted before it was committed and there was no outcry then either, not sure why brown skin is brought into things, does that mean anyone with a tan? terrorism is terrorism whatever skin colour you are, I think most people know that

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Not so, I'm afraid.

You are talking about Demographics.

Tabloids have ALWAYS outsold the Broadsheets well before ISIS existed, or indeed before Muslims became 'newsworthy' because of various developments concerning groups of them in the UK over recent years.

And the reason for this is demographics;

The Sun is a lightweight easy to read newspaper which is favoured by the 'Working Class' and so-called 'Precariat' generally non-working classes.

The Daily Mail is more 'Upper Working Class' and 'Middle Class' whilst more 'Serious' Newspapers such as The Times still appeal more to the 'Upper-Middle' and 'Upper Classes'.

Because there are far more 'Working Class' and 'Precariat Class' people and far more 'Middle Class' people in the UK than there are 'Upper Class the newspapers which you brand 'Trash' will ALWAYS sell more than their more 'serious' counterparts.

Hmmmm on principle I mostly agree, although I would argue that The Sun is mostly non-working / working class and the DM really only extends as far as lower-middle class / blue+white collar, I wouldn't say it extends quite as fair as straight-middle (although obviously there's overlap in all areas).

But otherwise I agree; tabloids will always outsell other news sources for the simple reason that certain demographics will always be in a strong majority. What worries me about that though, and I'm SURE this is likely to offend ... is that the working and underclass has on average a lower level of further education, and while that does not mean that they are "less intelligent" by any means, it DOES mean that they're more likely to be lacking in some of the critical reasoning skills that are needed to "read between the lines", or in other words, they are more likely to take what's IN the papers they read as face-value "fact", when it's likely to be full of half-truths, exaggerations and one or two straight up lies.


All of that said... none of it worries me half as much as what's happened over the last decade: people taking what they read on social media as actual news . And this seems to happen across all classes and age ranges

South Park covered it recently in an episode... something like,

"I dunno, I've heard about you guys."

"That stuff isn't true."

"Yes it is... I saw it in the news."

"NO YOU ****ING DIDN'T YOU READ IT ON FACEBOOK!!"

" "