[Alf]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Criminalising protest.

Attacking human rights lawyers as left wing.

Taking over control of elections and the implementation of voter ID which overwhelmingly infringes on young people/students, and minorities (non trad tory voting groups) despite the fact voter fraud is not and has never been an issue.

Legalising police criminality.

Rwanda and the falsification of actual asylum rights, so that even people on here regularly repeat lies about first safe country.

Covid oligarchy.

Just to name a few things off the top of the dome.

Read the bill. They're not criminalising protests. They're protecting working people from going about their daily work from protesters who are deliberately disrupting them and putting them in danger.

As the so called workers party you'd think Labour would be all for protecting the workers, but apparently not. If they were criminalising protests then I'd be against that, but I read the bill and that's not what's happening.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Poor kids! Why kids? .. surely if he was disturbed enough to do this he was angry at someone, but children?

I read that angry young men are increasingly being indoctrinated into incel culture. This is a growing concern as a new form of terrorism.

He was crazy
Easy targets

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

Read the bill. They're not criminalising protests. They're protecting working people from going about their daily work from protesters who are deliberately disrupting them and putting them in danger.

As the so called workers party you'd think Labour would be all for protecting the workers, but apparently not. If they were criminalising protests then I'd be against that, but I read the bill and that's not what's happening.

Protest by it's nature is supposed to disrupt. Labour isn't a workers party anymore, but it's false to pretend that protecting workers is the aim of the bill, when you can end up with a 10 year prison sentence, just as civil unrest is on the cards over col crisis.

[UserSince2005]

send love to us here in texas pls.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by UserSince2005

send love to us here in texas pls.

I’m sure the vast majority have already sent their good wishes / prayers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[UserSince2005]

Originally Posted by Zizu

I’m sure the vast majority have already sent their good wishes / prayers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

yeah but to us that are here in the eye of the storm right now having to deal with the consequences of this barbaric act.

[Alf]

School shootings didn't take off with the frequency we see today until the 1990s. There were the odd incidents of school shootings before that but with nowhere near close the frequency we now see.

What went wrong?

[Alf]

This is a good twitter thread on the subject.

[AnnieK]

So harrowing for everyone. Poor children, parents and the whole community

When I worked in the States in 98, we had a pool on the sub-division I lived on. A guy came there and shot his ex-girlfriend who was a lifeguard and then killed himself in front of loads of families and kids. It was horrific.

[Alf]

Holy Eartha Kitt

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Alf

Holy Eartha Kitt

sickening

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Alf

Holy Eartha Kitt

completely inappropriate tweet

[bots]

whatabout at it's best. He then does 3 further tweets that say nothing about the children and congratulates activism and calls for police reform

[Toy Soldier]

It’s clumsy but the “Social Media Outrage Story Reeee!!” flying around about this one is that he decided to completely randomly tweet about George Floyd.

May 25th is the 2 year anniversary of the George Floyd incident.

I suspect he wanted to tweet about that anniversary but thought it would be disrespectful not to acknowledge the school shooting.

Unfortunately as I said this was done very clumsily and has come across as looking like the opposite. But I don’t think that was the intent. Just terrible PR advice (if he’s still taking any). His best bet would have been to have two separate tweets in close succession, and also to not assume that people already know the significance of May 25th when mentioning George Floyd, as like I said it comes across as totally random if you don’t know it marks 2 years.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It’s clumsy but the “Social Media Outrage Story Reeee!!” flying around about this one is that he decided to completely randomly tweet about George Floyd.

May 25th is the 2 year anniversary of the George Floyd incident.

I suspect he wanted to tweet about that anniversary but thought it would be disrespectful not to acknowledge the school shooting.

Unfortunately as I said this was done very clumsily and has come across as looking like the opposite. But I don’t think that was the intent. Just terrible PR advice (if he’s still taking any). His best bet would have been to have two separate tweets in close succession, and also to not assume that people already know the significance of May 25th when mentioning George Floyd, as like I said it comes across as totally random if you don’t know it marks 2 years.

He could have simply posted two separate tweets lumping George Floyds two year anniversary into a tweet about the shooting of kids the day before is thoughtless at best, I think most people realised it was the anniversary from the tweet

also the shooting was on the 24th so they dont even share an anniversary

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

He could have simply posted two separate tweets lumping George Floyds two year anniversary into a tweet about the shooting of kids the day before is thoughtless at best, I think most people realised it was the anniversary from the tweet

Well yes I did say, the best thing would have been to make it a completely standalone tweet and simply opened with “On May 25th, 2020…” etc.

There’s still have been inevitable kickback, because… well… it’s social media, however the way it’s been done looks like it’s trying to equate the two or draw some sort of comparison. I doubt that was the intent but I’m also confused about how it slipped through when (presumably?) he isn’t just throwing about tweets Trump-style - I would have thought Obama would have his tweets PR checked. If he even writes them in the first place.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

also the shooting was on the 24th so they dont even share an anniversary

Yes but the tweet was made on the 25th… I imagine that’s the whole reason the tweet ended up being this clumsy to be honest; they were worried about making the school shooting “yesterdays news” by not acknowledging it. But it was handled very messily.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but the tweet was made on the 25th… I imagine that’s the whole reason the tweet ended up being this clumsy to be honest; they were worried about making the school shooting “yesterdays news” by not acknowledging it. But it was handled very messily.

surprised he waited a day to tweet about the shooting

[bots]

the implication is that he didn't give a crap about the school shooting 1) He didnt tweet about it on the day, 2) From the additional tweets it's obvious that the floyd anniversary was his only focus.

I don't think it was clumsy, i just don't think he cared about the shooting. Thinking back to when he was president, i dont think he gave much of a crap when those type of events happened then either

[Alf]

I will say that he probably didn't make the tweet personally, he probably has a social media team. Although of course I don't know that, I'm just guessing.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Alf

Your wait is getting close to being over.

The pic on the left is fake (not the same person) Alf.

In answer to the question, I don’t find it that weird that he could afford it. Apparently he had a job, and he lived with family so no outgoings. Could have saved that in 6 months no problem even with a crappy wage… amazing how far money goes if you don’t have mortgage/rent/bills/food to think about.

Lots of 18 year olds own their own car, for example, so it’s not a stretch that he could have saved for and bought rifles.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Regardless, the shooter didn't get his weapons through legal means, so why should we assume he spent the retail price?

To be fair if he bought them illegitimately they’d have cost more, not less.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The pic on the left is fake (not the same person) Alf.

In answer to the question, I don’t find it that weird that he could afford it. Apparently he had a job, and he lived with family so no outgoings. Could have saved that in 6 months no problem even with a crappy wage… amazing how far money goes if you don’t have mortgage/rent/bills/food to think about.

Lots of 18 year olds own their own car, for example, so it’s not a stretch that he could have saved for and bought rifles.

Maybe so, worth investigating though. It's not an unreasonable question to be inquisitive about.

Rumours say he was unemployed and lived with his Grandma. Whether that's true or not I don't know.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Alf

Holy Eartha Kitt

Totally tone-deaf. If he wanted to invoke the death of a career criminal at the hands of a police officer in order to make some kind of point, that's fine; but leave the murder of innocent children out of it.

[Vanessa]

This is horrible. Those poor kids
They need much stricter gun control laws.
How is a teen able to buy so many weapons without any background checks?