Extreme right wing terrorism
 

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

Because these are "alleged crimes"?

Because it doesn't fit the image of terrorism that the media wants to portray. They want you to be scared of brown skin and head scarves and to be suspicious of muslims. They don't want a narrative of white right wing extremists targetting female members of the left because they're too busy pushing the anti-women narrative on the muslims.

No doubt that a lot of the media, if they cover this story at all will not describe this person as a terrorist but as a mentally disturbed individual, he probably doesn't have the right skin tone to call him a terrorist.

I'm not responding to you if you can't even be bothered to read the article.

He has been charged and appeared in court alongside 5 other named men.

In court "accused of alleged crimes".

Once found guilty, I'm all for plastering his name and face everywhere.

I detest this culture of vultures wanting names and shames rather than letting the justice system do their jobs first. It's incredibly damaging.

Then don't.

it's odd how 5 can be named yet one can't, wonder what legal reason it is.

My guess someone has paid for the privilege.

It seems a bit odd doesn't it? The only I can think of if the others have been named is perhaps he has some sort of mental condition that means he can't be treated the same as them like autism or something?

I’m not sure if this is a controversial thing to say. But I think it all stems from just being stupid. It leads to frustration and anger, and which group is most welcoming of frustrated and angry people? Extreme right wing. They give them a place to direct their anger, and eventually, **** like this will happen.

People with autism have to face justice like everyone else.
Unless it is his mental age... but to be part of a sophisticated plot and purchase items such as those that seems unlikely :/

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.

Yeah what I meant was if he had severe autism, or some other mental issue there might be some doubt over him understanding the rights and wrongs and some grey area over being treated the same as adults he may have been with.

Would he then be fit to stand trial?.. He is so you would think he could be named.

To be included in the same trial as the other defendants I would have thought he was mentally competent. I don't think I've seen a trial before where they name some but not all defendants. Seems odd.

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.

I agree.

I think I agree with that; it's sort of like football hooliganism. The violence and destruction of property happens simply because that's what they want to do. That's their reason for being there. The rest is just excuses and a convenient way to band into a cohesive group.

There was recently a far right rally in my local town that was "countered" by a far left group. Not many from either side actually turned up and it was pretty clear that NEITHER was actually involved in it for the politics... It was just an excuse to wave things about and shout at each other. I'd be very, very surprised if you could have picked any one of them out of the crowd and had them discuss political philosophy with any degree of conviction.

Absolute biased TOSH - EVERY extremist is STUPID and DANGEROUS and should never be tolerated by the authorities or Society as a whole, no matter if they are Extreme LEFT WING or Extreme RIGHT WING.

Frustrated and angry people are welcomed by both LEFT and RIGHT WING Organisations in addition to dim-witted people, gullible people, poorly educated people, anti-Social people, people with 'Chips On Their Shoulders' and any other type of people.

We have a Democracy in this country and RIGHT WING EXTREMIST CRETINS who make Death Threats to innocent politicians or anyone else are just as deserving of imprisonment as are LEFT WING EXTREMIST CRETINS who intimidate and threaten and put their hands on such as Nigel Farage when he is out with his family having Sunday Lunch.

I asked who was most welcoming, and I answered the extreme right.. Your post seems to have misinterpreted that for something else. This isn’t really relevant to the thread topic, Kirk.

Very well put! Bigots on both sides - always have been and always will be.

The media in this country SHY AWAY from mentioning COLOUR, RACE or even TERRORIST affiliations in criminal incidents until AFTER the 'suspected perpetrators' have been caught and arrested or the Police release definitive identifications.

Witness the LONG interval before the word Asian or Pakistani or Muslim was freely used by the media in the various Nationwide 'Children For Sex' 'Grooming' cases, and a host of other cases.

What’s relevant or not is a matter of perspective and you do not have the monopoly on perspective. Focusing more on your own words than those of other posters would likely be more productive and relevant to the thread.

Here's what you put Withano:

Originally Posted by Withano View Post
"I’m not sure if this is a controversial thing to say. But I think it all stems from just being stupid. It leads to frustration and anger, and which group is most welcoming of frustrated and angry people? Extreme right wing. They give them a place to direct their anger, and eventually, **** like this will happen."

You asked a RHETORICAL question which you immediately answered yourself so you were NOT asking a question but making a statement which I RIGHTFULLY interpreted as 'biased'.

If YOUR post is relevant to the thread topic then mine then certainly is too.

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?

Literally nome of your posts have been on-topic in this thread yet. This is about 5 right wing extremists. You have not commented on them, or their affiliation. Just an overview on terrorism really, which isnt relevant.

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.

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.

Nobody said it did.

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

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

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?'

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.

Well said Kirk

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

Great post Kirk.

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.

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.

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.