Possibly has to do with brexit. Witnesses allege the attacker yelled britain first. At least they got the guy.
"The man arrested after Labour MPJo Cox was repeatedly shot and stabbed has been named locally as Tommy Mair, a local man from Birstall where the attack took place."
I've already seen the rabid denouncements of anyone in favour of Leave and the ridiculous statements about all Leavers being implicit in this crime. Because feth everything else, let's use an incident like this to have another go at people with differing opinions.
I hope this doesn't get used to score political points on either side. This is nothing to do with the EU debate and everything to do with mental illness.
Sounds like he was a Britain First nut, I'd be suprised if this was directly related to the euro debate. She's heavily involved with refugee campaigning, so I'd say it's more likely to do with that.
Poor woman. It's amazing these people even exist these days. Papers are saying he was a loner and was in the news 6 years ago talking about mental health.
Can't say i'm shocked this person died. Unless you're a bodybuilder most people don't survive being shot and stabbed. Our hospitals haven't advanced that far yet and losing so much blood on the way to the hospital (which takes a while) is a big part of it.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Can't say i'm shocked this person died. Unless you're a bodybuilder most people don't survive being shot and stabbed. Our hospitals haven't advanced that far yet and losing so much blood on the way to the hospital (which takes a while) is a big part of it.
That's not really true, people usually survive being shot and/or stabbed as long as nothing vital was damaged and there isn't too much blood loss. I believe that she was shot 3 times though, including in the head.
MPs typical don't travel around with security as it's not usually needed. She was just leaving the local MP surgery where typically MPs talk to constituents about their needs and concerns. People would be put off visiting if they were surrounded by sinister suits or gangs of police!
She was one of the good ones. She worked for and with a number of humanitarian NGOs, including Oxfam, and dedicated her life to trying to make the world a better place for other people.
With all the self-serving, hate-mongering bastards out there who exist to prop up their own kind at the expense of others, who are ruining our world in the name of petty self-interest, why in the hell would anybody want to hurt somebody like Jo? I cannot comprehend how we live in a society so utterly broken and divided that anyone could demonise a fething angel like Jo, just because she sticks up for the "wrong" sort of person.
Every day I walk past tabloid headlines designed to foment anger and paranoia, designed to pit "us" against "them", and I wonder how the hell these wretched hacks can sleep at night, knowing full well that their rhetoric fuels hate and goads sectarian knuckle-draggers - all for the sake of a quick quid!
Bah, I'm just rambling now. Batley's where Oxfam has its Festival Shop HQ; I've been lucky enough to work with them at a few festivals. Somebody posted a pic of Jo presenting one of their workers with a giant teddy at a local fair. I had no idea that bear had such an illustrious background! I've just been thinking about how hard it must have hit the team, and it just made me so upset thinking about how much harder it is for her friends and family.
The bigot who took her away from us is but an amoeba in comparison. Here's a woman who actually made something of herself and actually made a positive difference in the world. Her example makes me want to try even harder to help make this world a better place.
[EDIT: Ugh. Of all the frames the uploader could have chosen for a thumbnail. Sorry if you're "Out", the video's still worth a watch, because it's about Jo and barely has anything to do with the referendum. ]
She was in Birstall. Pretty rough area to be in for a start. High levels of poverty, social exclusion etc.
Could have been Brexit related, or just that the guy who did it was demented to begin with- most likely the latter. Terrible way to go though. Rest in Peace.
This is from a guy on Reddit who claims to be a local of the area...
Local here, street away from the murderer and down the road from the amazing Jo Coxs surgery.
Sadden and shocked. I know it's trotted out on every one of these horrific incidents but the man was genuinely a loner who was flying rodent gak mad.
He used to go to a mental health course thing that really helped him a year or so ago, after the elections it got discontinued and he sort of blamed her for it. Felt she was giving too much to Europe & everywhere but locally (her amazing Syria & anti-slavery work etc) which is just completely incorrect. She cared a great deal about her constituency and she walked around Birstall as a local, not a shipped in MP. He was a lunatic with a grudge and that is a dangerous combo.
A shocking day we won't forget. I can't imagine what her husband and kids are going through. My heart bleeds for them.
If we have more people like Jo Cox in the world will be a different place in 100 years. Take a leaf from her book in your forward steps. Rest in peace.
So looks like he's a victim of austerity cuts, and has taken it out on his local (opposition) MP. Sounds like he had serious problems, not that it excuses what he did in any way.
I cannot imagine what her family is going through. Two children who not only lost their mother, but will see her deathbused again and again in arguments they are likely too young to yet comprehend.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Daily Telegraph is saying that the suspect was well known locally, has a history of mental health issues, and was well know to the local authorities.
Predictably, and sadly, the Guardian newspaper has used this awful tragedy to attack Nigel Farage...
Dude, you've said this in two separate threads now and still haven't provided a link to the article in question.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Daily Telegraph is saying that the suspect was well known locally, has a history of mental health issues, and was well know to the local authorities.
Predictably, and sadly, the Guardian newspaper has used this awful tragedy to attack Nigel Farage...
Dude, you've said this in two separate threads now and still haven't provided a link to the article in question.
I've had a quick scan of the guardian website and I can't find anything obvious. The closest I can find is an opinion piece by Polly Toynbee saying how the atmosphere around the campaign is quite ugly and has whipped up a lot of hate. It neither targets Farage individually, or apportions blame for this incident on him.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Daily Telegraph is saying that the suspect was well known locally, has a history of mental health issues, and was well know to the local authorities.
Predictably, and sadly, the Guardian newspaper has used this awful tragedy to attack Nigel Farage...
Dude, you've said this in two separate threads now and still haven't provided a link to the article in question.
I've had a quick scan of the guardian website and I can't find anything obvious. The closest I can find is an opinion piece by Polly Toynbee saying how the atmosphere around the campaign is quite ugly and has whipped up a lot of hate. It neither targets Farage individually, or apportions blame for this incident on him.
Yeah, that's why I asked. I had a look through all the articles I could find and only found one that mentioned Farage, and that was referencing the poster unveiled yesterday that's been criticised as an example of the current state of politics more than any sort of "blame Farage" comment.
That's the one I thought they might be referring to, but even then all it does is go "this is a poster that was unveiled yesterday" as an example of how dehumanised politics is rather than any "This is all Farage's fault" comment.
That's the one I thought they might be referring to, but even then all it does is go "this is a poster that was unveiled yesterday" as an example of how dehumanised politics is rather than any "This is all Farage's fault" comment.
The opinion piece starts off as a tribute to Jo Cox, and yet, the Guardian somehow finds room to rail road Farage's name into it. Persoanlly, I found it disgusting and gutter journalism of the lowest kind. You'd expect that sort of political exploitation from the Daily Mail, not The Guardian.
And for the record, I despise Nigel Farage, but the Guardian crossed a line IMO.
A pro-EU politician is murdered by a nazi who shouts "Britain first" and you think it's disgusting that other pro-EU people point out the dehumanising campaign of a politician who is all about putting white Britain first.
It starts off as a tribute to her, then to a tribute of her ideals and goals, before transitioning into an explanation of how current political discourse runs counter to her goals and ideals, using the example of the "breaking point" poster to illustrate the point that the debate has turned ugly and divisive. It was a criticism of the dehumanising nature of politics at the moment and how she was opposed to it.
To quote: "The idealism of Ms Cox was the very antithesis of such brutal cynicism."
I am genuinely confused as to how you're able to read that and get as angry as you appear.
Rosebuddy wrote: A pro-EU politician is murdered by a nazi who shouts "Britain first" and you think it's disgusting that other pro-EU people point out the dehumanising campaign of a politician who is all about putting white Britain first.
1) We don't know if the suspect shouted Britain first. Some Eyewitnesses said he did, some said he didn't. The facts are not even established, and people are leaping to conclusions. When we had that awful massacre in Norway, every media outlet believed it to be the work of an Islamic fundamentalist. The rest is history...
2) Nigel Farage is well within his rights to campaign against immigration in our democracy. He has broken no laws. It's not a crime in Britain to say that immigration is a problem. I don't like Farage, but to blame his campaign for this death is frankly disgusting...
3) There are thousands of non-white people voting to leave. I witnessed a man of Caribbean origin on the BBC the other day (Victoria Derbyshire show) and he was voting to leave. He was black by the way...
4) The OUT campaign are not the only side to engage in ridiculous rhetoric. Remain have been peddling the line that a BREXIT will lead to world war 3, the collapse of Western Civilization and the destruction of the global finance system. Both sides are guilty of talking horsegak!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote: It starts off as a tribute to her, then to a tribute of her ideals and goals, before transitioning into an explanation of how current political discourse runs counter to her goals and ideals, using the example of the "breaking point" poster to illustrate the point that the debate has turned ugly and divisive. It was a criticism of the dehumanising nature of politics at the moment and how she was opposed to it.
To quote: "The idealism of Ms Cox was the very antithesis of such brutal cynicism."
I am genuinely confused as to how you're able to read that and get as angry as you appear.
So why is Farage mentioned in this? You do know that between the official time of her death being announced, and the article being published, there was a gap of 3-4 hours. Given newspaper deadlines, they had a draft of this written up as she was fighting for her life...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 2) Nigel Farage is well within his rights to campaign against immigration in our democracy. He has broken no laws. It's not a crime in Britain to say that immigration is a problem. I don't like Farage, but to blame his campaign for this death is frankly disgusting...
And again, I will repeat that in the article it does not say "Oh my god it's all Farage's fault". It uses the poster as an example of the current state of political discourse.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 2) Nigel Farage is well within his rights to campaign against immigration in our democracy. He has broken no laws. It's not a crime in Britain to say that immigration is a problem. I don't like Farage, but to blame his campaign for this death is frankly disgusting...
And again, I will repeat that in the article it does not say "Oh my god it's all Farage's fault". It uses the poster as an example of the current state of political discourse.
A woman is dying in hospital, the facts of the attack are yet to be established, but already a national newspaper is looking to exploit this death in order to attack the leave campaign...
And some people think there's nothing wrong with that...
What the hell happened to this country?
You're claiming it's only a reflection of the current state of political discourse, but why no mention of the claims made this week by Donald Tusk that Western Civilization will end if it's BREXIT?
The answer to that is obvious, because it didn't fit the Guardian's pro-Remain agenda.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: So why is Farage mentioned in this? You do know that between the official time of her death being announced, and the article being published, there was a gap of 3-4 hours. Given newspaper deadlines, they had a draft of this written up as she was fighting for her life...
And you don't think that's gutter journalism?
Because Farage was the one that unveiled the advert? Because all of the pictures of the advert have him standing in front of it? Because he commissioned it?
And yes. And there was a gap of around 3-4 hours between her being shot and the announcement of her death. The article reads as if it doesn't require her to be dead; all of the points made within are perfectly valid were she to have survived, so I am almost certain that it was written as a "A person has been shot, we need to be better and not give up on her ideals" article that was tweaked when it was announced that she had passed.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 2) Nigel Farage is well within his rights to campaign against immigration in our democracy. He has broken no laws. It's not a crime in Britain to say that immigration is a problem. I don't like Farage, but to blame his campaign for this death is frankly disgusting...
And again, I will repeat that in the article it does not say "Oh my god it's all Farage's fault". It uses the poster as an example of the current state of political discourse.
A woman is dying in hospital, the facts of the attack are yet to be established, but already a national newspaper is looking to exploit this death in order to attack the leave campaign...
It's not about the fething Leave campaign! The crappiness inherent to today's politics is not only present in the leave campaign! There are groups of people being dehumanised in every single sphere of public discourse at the moment, be they people on benefits, refugees, immigrants, muslims, politicians and goodness knows who else. It is awful! Her own fething husband has said "'Jo believed in a better world. She would want us all to unite against the hatred that killed her", is he somehow engaging in gutter politics?
For goodness' sake, not everything in this country is about the fething referendum. The poster was revealed less than two hours before she was shot and was a very very timely example of how gakky people are being to each other at the moment.
You're claiming it's only a reflection of the current state of political discourse, but why no mention of the claims made this week by Donald Tusk that Western Civilization will end if it's BREXIT?
The answer to that is obvious, because it didn't fit the Guardian's pro-Remain agenda.
No, the answer to that is because Donald Tusk making that comment doesn't demonise a group of people and increase division between groups. I'd have thought that would be perfectly bloody obvious. He didn't say that X group is bad, he didn't try to create divisions between people, he stated that voting leave would create *more* division.
2) Nigel Farage is well within his rights to campaign against immigration in our democracy. He has broken no laws. It's not a crime in Britain to say that immigration is a problem. I don't like Farage, but to blame his campaign for this death is frankly disgusting...
Thing is, the murderer's motives seem to be a very distorted view of the ones Farage is using for his own interests. And that's what is really bothering the pro-Brexit, IMHO. This act is showing what happens when someone takes their arguments litterally in an ugly, twisted way.
2) Nigel Farage is well within his rights to campaign against immigration in our democracy. He has broken no laws. It's not a crime in Britain to say that immigration is a problem. I don't like Farage, but to blame his campaign for this death is frankly disgusting...
Thing is, the murderer's motives seem to be a very distorted view of the ones Farage is using for his own interests. And that's what is really bothering the pro-Brexit, IMHO. This act is showing what happens when someone takes their arguments litterally in an ugly, twisted way.
We don't know what his motives were, yet. There are two conflicting accounts:
1) He attacked her because he was a neo-Nazi who hated immigrants, and she was a target for being pro-immigrant
2) The attacker was fighting somebody else, and Jo Cox went to break it up. The attacker then turned on her and murdered her...
1) He attacked her because he was a neo-Nazi who hated immigrants, and she was a target for being pro-immigrant
And Farage is as well heavily against immigration, right? It's very obvious the murderer wasn't really listening to the pro-Remain arguments when he decided to kill that poor woman.
That's why I say "it seems" before. In people's minds, it's easy to make links that are not the reality, yet still have disturbing echoes.
2) The attacker was fighting somebody else, and Jo Cox went to break it up. The attacker then turned on her and murdered her...
Hmm, so far what I read is more some witnesses say that the attacker was waiting an altercation between two other men before the MP came out to separate them. Nowhere I saw it was him involved in the altercation before the MP coming.
Another man came after the initial attack to try to stop him for what I read here;
I agree with 'DO_I_NOT_LIKE_THAT' - this guardian editorial is falling into the worst failing in an opinion; assuming that the other argument is 'stupid'.
I'm getting the feeling that the article was more about distancing themselves ideologically from nigel farage and this group i've never heard of rather than paying tribute properly. Trash journalism.
Naturally, i'm saddened for jo cox's family & friends.
Maybe the media will leave them alone to grieve in peace.
There was yet another report somewhere that he (wrongly, because ofc she's an opposition MP) blamed her for the closing down of local mental health services that had previously supported him.
But yeah, the Guardian piece is trash. It's hypocritical, opportunistic and premature.
“Following the tragic killing of Labour MPJo Cox, the Conservative Party has decided not to contest the forthcoming by-election as a mark of respect to a much-loved and respected politician.”
Baragash wrote: There was yet another report somewhere that he (wrongly, because ofc she's an opposition MP) blamed her for the closing down of local mental health services that had previously supported him.
But yeah, the Guardian piece is trash. It's hypocritical, opportunistic and premature.
Yeah, I read something about that as well - that the attack could have been motivated by anger at cuts to mental health services. In no way does it excuse this horrendous murder, but it's a possible explanation.
Again, we won't know for sure until the facts come out.
My apologies if I'm coming across as only interested in the politics of this. This was a shocking murder that has robbed Britain of somebody, who by all accounts, was a credit to the human race and a good parliamentarian. I hope her children get through this ok.
A sign in a shop by the spot Jo Cox was killed states the claims that the gunman shouted "Britain First" are untrue.
he message in the landerette's window says: "Please note, I did not tackle the gunman. And no one shouted Britain First at any time."
LBC's reporter in Birstall Bethan Davies spoke to Ahmed Tahir, the owner, who insisted he has not spoken to anyone who heard that phrase.
And Mr Tahir admitted he was worried for his safety after reports named him for making to original claim.
That was fine up until that last line. Now we don't know whether he's truly recanting his previous statement, or he's doing it out of fear; the latter of which would obviously just add more fuel to a fire that shouldn't be burning in the first place.
jhe90 wrote: Its too early to get a perfect version of events. They are still investigating and looking into it.
Anything now is assumption..
Considering his past subscriptions to White Supremacist organisations, the Nazi memorabilia at his home, and reports he bought bomb making and gun making instructions from neo nazi sites in the US. I think his right wing credentials are pretty much confirmed.
Britain first or not, we've clearly got a case of home grown right wing terrorism here. Even taking his mental health into account.
jhe90 wrote: Well that looks convincing that he had a link. However how deep does that link go?
Was it surface or is there something more concrete. ?
No idea with Britain First specifically, but there is apparently evidence of him being a subscriber to a White South African Supremacist magazine, having spent about $600 on books from a US neo-nazi website and having been a member of (maybe attended - I didn't take in the full details) an ultra conservative group in London. If he's been 'around' the UK right-wing scene for 20 - 30 years, even if not physically but just by ordering books, magazine etc and on the internet, I don't see that he couldn't have been at least aware of Britain First as an organisation. That said, he isn't a name I've seen associated with any of the currently active far-right groups, although I wouldn't profess to be an expert. What I mean by that is there's names that if they had done this I would instantly recognise, his isn't one.
jhe90 wrote: Well that looks convincing that he had a link. However how deep does that link go?
Was it surface or is there something more concrete. ?
There's no evidence at all that he was an intrinsic part of the operation - I doubt he was. There's plenty of evidence that he was a rather inadequate, mentally ill person who fell prey to far-right propaganda. Those kind of folks are a key part of the far-right's constituency, after all.
I've also seen several claims on Facebook that this was a False Flag operation run by the Remain campaign. Once again, America leads, the UK follows.
The idea that this is some kind of false flag operation by the remain campaign is grossly offensive, and the very worst kind of conspiracy theory nonsense.
jhe90 wrote: Well that looks convincing that he had a link. However how deep does that link go?
Was it surface or is there something more concrete. ?
There's no evidence at all that he was an intrinsic part of the operation - I doubt he was. There's plenty of evidence that he was a rather inadequate, mentally ill person who fell prey to far-right propaganda. Those kind of folks are a key part of the far-right's constituency, after all.
I've also seen several claims on Facebook that this was a False Flag operation run by the Remain campaign. Once again, America leads, the UK follows.
.
Like I said in the EU thread, going forward we're going to get a lot of "Everyone thats supports LEAVE are Far Right Fascists!", and the inevitable "Jo Cox was a False Flag!" conspiracy lunacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Kroll wrote: The idea that this is some kind of false flag operation by the remain campaign is grossly offensive, and the very worst kind of conspiracy theory nonsense.
I agree. Exploiting Jo Cox's murder and trying to tar everyone on the Leave side as Far Right extremists is also offensive.
The more of the latter we see, the more it will encourage the former.
jhe90 wrote: Well that looks convincing that he had a link. However how deep does that link go?
Was it surface or is there something more concrete. ?
There's no evidence at all that he was an intrinsic part of the operation - I doubt he was. There's plenty of evidence that he was a rather inadequate, mentally ill person who fell prey to far-right propaganda. Those kind of folks are a key part of the far-right's constituency, after all.
I've also seen several claims on Facebook that this was a False Flag operation run by the Remain campaign. Once again, America leads, the UK follows.
.
Like I said in the EU thread, going forward we're going to get a lot of "Everyone thats supports LEAVE are Far Right Fascists!", and the inevitable "Jo Cox was a False Flag!" conspiracy lunacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Kroll wrote: The idea that this is some kind of false flag operation by the remain campaign is grossly offensive, and the very worst kind of conspiracy theory nonsense.
I agree. Exploiting Jo Cox's murder and trying to tar everyone on the Leave side as Far Right extremists is also offensive.
The more of the latter we see, the more it will encourage the former.
I don't think I've seen anyone suggesting that everyone on the leave side is a far right extremist. That's a bit of a strawman argument frankly.
And while not everyone who votes leave is a racist, I'd be suprised if every far right racist doesn't vote leave. still I'd say this is the wrong thread for that kind of discussion.
Nobody here, no. Its not a straw man because I'm not accusing anyone in this thread.
As for your comment about everyone in the Far Right voting for Leave, well that goes without saying. Though how its possible for White Brits to be racist against White Europeans is beyond me. Xenophobia is a more accurate term.
As for your comment about everyone in the Far Right voting for Leave, well that goes without saying. Though how its possible for White Brits to be racist against White Europeans is beyond me. Xenophobia is a more accurate term.
There's plenty of different categories of white people as far as the extreme right is concerned.
General Kroll wrote: The idea that this is some kind of false flag operation by the remain campaign is grossly offensive, and the very worst kind of conspiracy theory nonsense.
Not just that, but no-one will change their mind about how to vote because they think, "I hate immigration from the EU but I hate people shooting people who are in favour of immigration from the EU even more."
It's a plain stupid idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It could just as easily be a double-false flag op by Leave campaigners.
I agree. Exploiting Jo Cox's murder and trying to tar everyone on the Leave side as Far Right extremists is also offensive.
There have been a lot of pre-emptive comments along these lines, haven't there? I can't say that I've seen any evidence of what whatsoever - the nearest it's come to that, is people highlighting Farage's recent poster with Nazi overtones, and footage where he says there will be violence if people feelings on Europe are ignored, and citing it as an example of the irresponsibility of some of this debate. That's as far as people have gone - and it is surely a reasonable point to make?
Personally, I'd say the general media reaction has bent over backwards to placate the Brexit crew. the media have not ONCE suggested this was a right-wing terrorist attack - instead, it's talk of a mentally-deranged loner. Compare that with the Lee Rigby stabbing - which was universally described as terrorism.
My personal belief is, that had a Brexit campaigner been killed by a Muslim or left-winger, the Brexit campaign would have been all over it, invoking the fear of terrorism. Perhaps it's only people of colour who are terrorists .
I agree. Exploiting Jo Cox's murder and trying to tar everyone on the Leave side as Far Right extremists is also offensive.
There have been a lot of pre-emptive comments along these lines, haven't there? I can't say that I've seen any evidence of what whatsoever - the nearest it's come to that, is people highlighting Farage's recent poster with Nazi overtones, and footage where he says there will be violence if people feelings on Europe are ignored, and citing it as an example of the irresponsibility of some of this debate. That's as far as people have gone - and it is surely a reasonable point to make?
Like SCE said before, nobody in this thread has said it, but--rather fortunately--Off-topic doesn't represent everyone involved. My comment regarding it was hardly pre-emptive, given that it was based on the comments around various social medias that I had already seen when Jo was still fighting for her life. Just a few hours ago a Remainer on FB even posted about how tiring it is seeing an entire side of the referendum tarred with the same racist, bigoted brush, and others have since agreed. There's nothing pre-emptive about it; it's a proven fact that these comments have already been made, and they will likely continue to be made by people who are more interested in trying to make an entire chunk of the UK's population out to be fascists instead of choosing to debate with facts and logic. Hell, some Leavers have already switched to remain not because they support it, but because of the undeserved stigma that voting Leave may bring.
That is not to say that Remainers are to blame for this, either; I want to make that abundantly clear. These people may claim allegiance to the Remain campaign, but like the extremist Leavers they use to make these sweeping denunciations, they themselves are extremists, and to claim that they are indicative of an entire side of this referendum is pure lunacy.
Avatar 720 wrote: There's nothing pre-emptive about it; it's a proven fact that these comments have already been made, and they will likely continue to be made by people who are more interested in trying to make an entire chunk of the UK's population out to be fascists instead of choosing to debate with facts and logic..
AS far as I'm aware, on the record, one Labour MP and friend of Jo Cox said that people had been irresponsible. He was criticised for it. He said this: ": 'I think that the kind of nonsense that they inspire online from anonymous accounts and actually the core content of the poster they launched today, look at what they are putting out and I just think that they are a very dangerous, and they risk inspiring extremist elements on the hard right in this country.'
This is the only "leave-blaming" response, and it's been widely criticised as excessive.
Do you believe that, if a Muslim supporter of, say, Momentum, had murdered a prominent Brexiteer, there would have been more restrained, or less restrained, responses?
I've seen people commenting on news articles to the effect that "Care in the Community is a joke", with mental health services being cut and dangerous mentally ill people being left to roam unsupervised. "The Westminster bubble has been burst" and "now MP's know what members of the public have to deal with".
Jo Cox's murder should at the very least prompt a review of these mental health services.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:AS far as I'm aware, on the record, one Labour MP and friend of Jo Cox said that people had been irresponsible. He was criticised for it. He said this: ": 'I think that the kind of nonsense that they inspire online from anonymous accounts and actually the core content of the poster they launched today, look at what they are putting out and I just think that they are a very dangerous, and they risk inspiring extremist elements on the hard right in this country.'
This is the only "leave-blaming" response, and it's been widely criticised as excessive.
You're ignoring the fact that thousands of regular voters are also capable of sharing their opinions. That may be the only 'official' response, but there have been many, many 'unofficial' ones made by regular people.
welshhoppo wrote:Yet none of the media outlets are calling this a terrorist attack, and I doubt any of them will.
The Times seems to have gotten the closest, with headline leading with his links to far-right terrorism and also detailing the high chance of him being tried on terrorism charges. They've stopped short of outright calling him a terrorist, but the article implies it clearly enough.
You're ignoring the fact that thousands of regular voters are also capable of sharing their opinions. That may be the only 'official' response, but there have been many, many 'unofficial' ones made by regular people.
If we're talking the "Brexit as victim" card, I'm sure there will have been many Remain supporters overall who've linked Jo's murder with Brexit extremism. But we can't measure that, so I'm talking about what's been said in public.
Personaly, I've seen many people talking about how Farage's ads ape Nazi propaganda... but I've seen more deranged Brexiteers claim this was a False Flag attack. For instance, from a DJ in Yorkshire, yesterday morning: ". I believe 1000's of other people a voting to leave, but I seriously don't think it's gonna happen especially by how far their willing to go by having people murdered. ...The proof will be the remain then watch our country be flooded." On another thread, yesterday, someone talked about "Muslims breeding".
So, we can easily find extreme views on social media, and from what I've seen the hate talk has been confined to one side. But still, it's more meaningful for us to talk about the mainstream reaction, because that's something all of us here can see.
And, as pointed out, there's been claims that Jo's death has been "used" , in the headlines... when no-one on the Remain side has made explicit suggestions along those lines.
If you look on social media, or forums for that matter, you can find and opinion you want. Unless those comments have been made by, or copied by, someone in the public eye, you can't point to them as evidence of anything other than the fact that the Internet gives everyone a public voice, no matter how bizarre their views. You can't claim it's a view of any group, unlese you have an agender yourself.
I don't really care for the semantics of what you call him, he's a criminal and will face the appropriate charges.
You however seems to be drawing up your own narrative around it to sell a grubby veiw of people that would rather Britain remains a sovereign nation. Then you invoke "Jo's" name to underline the point.......because no Remainer would do such a thing....
notprop wrote: I don't really care for the semantics of what you call him, he's a criminal and will face the appropriate charges.
You however seems to be drawing up your own narrative around it to sell a grubby veiw of people that would rather Britain remains a sovereign nation. Then you invoke "Jo's" name to underline the point.......because no Remainer would do such a thing....
Puzzling irony.
Hmmm. Your own judgement is so distorted that you think using someone's first name is offensive... in a scenario when you well know someone has been murdered for her political views. Certainly not for her views about Brexit or Remain, but something much more profound.
I will leave this here as it's beyond resolution on this thread.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I'm saying this seems to be a terrorist murder. But isn't being reported as such. Disagree? tell us why.
I don't think it fits the profile. Terror attacks are supposed to spread fear and unrest through the general population. People need to feel like it could happen to them. The assassination of politicians doesn't really do that, unless you're an MP you're probably not any more concerned than usual about being murdered by a crazy person. I wouldn't call the assassination of JFK a terror attack, why should this be any different?
notprop wrote: I don't really care for the semantics of what you call him, he's a criminal and will face the appropriate charges.
You however seems to be drawing up your own narrative around it to sell a grubby veiw of people that would rather Britain remains a sovereign nation. Then you invoke "Jo's" name to underline the point.......because no Remainer would do such a thing....
Puzzling irony.
Hmmm. Your own judgement is so distorted that you think using someone's first name is offensive... in a scenario when you well know someone has been murdered for her political views. Certainly not for her views about Brexit or Remain, but something much more profound.
I will leave this here as it's beyond resolution on this thread.
No, she was murdered for the political views of her murderer.
What none of this has to do with is the referendum, though you seem to be trying your hardest to tarnish Leave campaigners by associating them with this act. Most distasteful.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I'm saying this seems to be a terrorist murder. But isn't being reported as such. Disagree? tell us why.
I don't think it fits the profile. Terror attacks are supposed to spread fear and unrest through the general population. People need to feel like it could happen to them. The assassination of politicians doesn't really do that, unless you're an MP you're probably not any more concerned than usual about being murdered by a crazy person. I wouldn't call the assassination of JFK a terror attack, why should this be any different?
Murders intended to make a point or terrorise people, to push a political agenda or to suppress certain views can certainly fall into that category. Previous murders of Tory MPs like Airey Neave were all categorised as terrorism. You tend to have to be "foreign" to be a terrorist in some people's view.
You can take two views about this horrible event, although they're not necessarily mutually exclusive; one is that this referendum has been negative, invoking barely-suppressed hatred and tensions, enough to sway a presumably easily-influenced individual. Secondly, political discourse has been debased - it's ok to say politicians are venal and cynical, and therefore we stop seeing them as human beings. One individual turned up on Radio 4 this evening saying, in effect, that they were all "at it"... seemed to think many of them deserved to die.
notprop wrote: ...you seem to be trying your hardest to tarnish Leave campaigners by associating them with this act. Most distasteful.
You seem to keep saying that; I have said it nowhere, there are many Leave campaigners whose views I accept. If someone attacked Nigel Farage, I would admit it's an awful thing and say the debate has got too nasty and heated. Do you think that is the case? Or do you think Mrs Cox's murder is not connected with the imminent referendum?
If I'm criticising anyone specific, it's certain sectors of the press for an obvious double standard.
Edit. In any case, the daily Mail has now changed its editorial line, with updated information. It has run a story on the extremist groups who have instructed members to get involved with the Leave campaign. Of course, no-one is suggesting the typical Leave member shares their views, but it is on the record that some sectors of the Leave campaign believe that Immigration, rather than the economy or sovereignty, is the most effective tactic.
filbert wrote: I hope this doesn't get used to score political points on either side. This is nothing to do with the EU debate and everything to do with mental illness.
Manure, and a sentiment I'm heartily sick of.
People kill people every day without the words "mental illness" ever being uttered, but the moment there's an uncomfortable political or sexual dimension to such crimes it's scapegoatin' time.
People with mental health problems are orders of magnitude more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of it, and that is in part because of the casual way neurotypical people use it as convenient way of distancing society from killers with a motivation they don't want to accept a "normal" person could ever have. Well, reality check; angry murderers can motivated by political ideology just as easily as they can be motivated by money or by personal betrayal/unfounded jealousy, and most of the political murderers society brands as insane(unless, of course, they're brown - in which case they're terrorists) wouldn't get within ten miles of being declared mentally unfit if they'd behaved in exactly the same way and taken exactly the same actions, only against a spouse instead.
I agree. There is lots of "we can't assume this" and "we can't say it's that" but we can instantly pin it on mental health issues. The perpetrator has been arrested and charged. He has not been detained under the mental health act. It is just as wrong to pin it on metal health problems as it is on political issues at this stage stage. Especially given that there is clear links to far right groups, yet the only mental health link was that he was depressed, something many millions of people face every day. Calling him "crazy" and pinning this all on his mental health is wrong.
To be honest though, with Britain First, they more than likely ARE a tile short. All skinhead far-right psychos in that bunch from what I've seen.
The best thing for this guy would be to just put 2 in the chest and one in his head. Next case.
filbert wrote: I hope this doesn't get used to score political points on either side. This is nothing to do with the EU debate and everything to do with mental illness.
Manure, and a sentiment I'm heartily sick of.
People kill people every day without the words "mental illness" ever being uttered, but the moment there's an uncomfortable political or sexual dimension to such crimes it's scapegoatin' time.
People with mental health problems are orders of magnitude more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of it, and that is in part because of the casual way neurotypical people use it as convenient way of distancing society from killers with a motivation they don't want to accept a "normal" person could ever have. Well, reality check; angry murderers can motivated by political ideology just as easily as they can be motivated by money or by personal betrayal/unfounded jealousy, and most of the political murderers society brands as insane(unless, of course, they're brown - in which case they're terrorists) wouldn't get within ten miles of being declared mentally unfit if they'd behaved in exactly the same way and taken exactly the same actions, only against a spouse instead.
angelofvengeance wrote: To be honest though, with Britain First, they more than likely ARE a tile short. All skinhead far-right psychos in that bunch from what I've seen.
The best thing for this guy would be to just put 2 in the chest and one in his head. Next case.
Oddly I can't find "a tile short" in DSM5 or NICE guidelines...
Labelling people with antisocial attitudes and violent tendencies as having mental health problems is just wrong. Labeling them "psychos" or other euphemisms for mental health problems should be stopped and stood up to. Especially when you insist that someone has mental health problems, and then that they should be killed for them. Just a disgusting view that has been prevalent for too long in our society. People with mental health problems need support, and we need to stop labelling everyone who does something like this as a "psycho" or "crazy". As long as we continue doing this we both harm all those struggling with mental health problems, and excuse the actions of those who commit these violent acts rather than addressing the underlying causes.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: I'm saying this seems to be a terrorist murder. But isn't being reported as such. Disagree? tell us why.
I don't think it fits the profile. Terror attacks are supposed to spread fear and unrest through the general population. People need to feel like it could happen to them. The assassination of politicians doesn't really do that, unless you're an MP you're probably not any more concerned than usual about being murdered by a crazy person. I wouldn't call the assassination of JFK a terror attack, why should this be any different?
Murders intended to make a point or terrorise people, to push a political agenda or to suppress certain views can certainly fall into that category.
"Can" being the operative word. Almost any crime "can" be considered terrorism, that doesn't mean we should go throwing the term around where it doesn't belong. I don't personally feel this fits the profile of a terrorist attack, and it doesn't surprise me that it isn't being reported as such. I can "understand" your idea, but I think you are reaching for something that just isn't there.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Previous murders of Tory MPs like Airey Neave were all categorised as terrorism. You tend to have to be "foreign" to be a terrorist in some people's view.
It's not about being "foreign", Airey Neave was killed by known terrorists, who also bombed dance halls... that's the reason his death was lumped together with terrorist attacks. Jo Cox was murdered by a crazy person who was probably acting alone, or under orders from his rice crispies. To me it has more in common with the murder of John Lennon, or any other famous person who was attacked by a lunatic/stalker.
Britain First (unlike the INLA) has not claimed any responsibility, and has condemned the attack, saying "we would not condone actions like that. We carry out protests and we stand in elections". Britain First might be racist thugs, but I wouldn't call them terrorists, that would be a tad hyperbolic.
If terrorism is to remain a useful classification it's important that the individual crime is the result of action by a parent organisation for a political end.
This one clearly isn't. It falls into the same category of "lone wolf" criminal as the Orlando massacre and the Lee Rigby murder.
Kilkrazy wrote: If terrorism is to remain a useful classification it's important that the individual crime is the result of action by a parent organisation for a political end.
This one clearly isn't. It falls into the same category of "lone wolf" criminal as the Orlando massacre and the Lee Rigby murder.
The Lee Rigby murder was terrorism. The killers had a clear political objective which they relayed to anyone who would listen, which was to pressure the government into pulling out of the middle east.
Smacks wrote: Jo Cox was murdered by a crazy person who was probably acting alone, or under orders from his rice crispies. To me it has more in common with the murder of John Lennon, or any other famous person who was attacked by a lunatic/stalker.
He received treatment from for depression. It's disgusting that it is acceptable to automatically assume this was the reason, or equate this to a caracartured view of paranoid schizophrenia. People with mental health problems suffer enough discrimination as it is, without trying to pin actions like this on it. At the moment the only evidence has been that he had far right associations and this was a politically motivated murder. He has been charged with murder, not been detained under the mental health act.
While that is true, it is not much help that the Lee Rigby terrorism team has been prosecuted and put away, because there are going to be more, as seen in France. Nor is it much use to blame the attack on ISIL, because they didn't organise it. In fact the situation now is that while ISIL is being gradually suppressed the number of lone wolf attacks seems to be going up. They are unlikely to stop if ISIL is destroyed.
Steve steveson wrote: He received treatment from for depression. It's disgusting that it is acceptable to automatically assume this was the reason, or equate this to a caracartured view of paranoid schizophrenia.
I was basing my diagnosis of "crazy" on the fact that he went crazy and murdered a woman. Nothing at all to do with his previous medical history.
Steve steveson wrote: He received treatment from for depression. It's disgusting that it is acceptable to automatically assume this was the reason, or equate this to a caracartured view of paranoid schizophrenia.
I was basing my diagnosis of "crazy" on the fact that he went crazy and murdered a woman. Nothing at all to do with his previous medical history.
Except he didn't "go crazy". It was a premeditated attack influenced by his political ideals.
angelofvengeance wrote: To be honest though, with Britain First, they more than likely ARE a tile short. All skinhead far-right psychos in that bunch from what I've seen.
The best thing for this guy would be to just put 2 in the chest and one in his head. Next case.
Oddly I can't find "a tile short" in DSM5 or NICE guidelines...
Labelling people with antisocial attitudes and violent tendencies as having mental health problems is just wrong. Labeling them "psychos" or other euphemisms for mental health problems should be stopped and stood up to. Especially when you insist that someone has mental health problems, and then that they should be killed for them. Just a disgusting view that has been prevalent for too long in our society. People with mental health problems need support, and we need to stop labelling everyone who does something like this as a "psycho" or "crazy". As long as we continue doing this we both harm all those struggling with mental health problems, and excuse the actions of those who commit these violent acts rather than addressing the underlying causes.
So what would you call this idiot then? Bottom dwelling national socialist trash? Or is that not politically correct?
He IS a bloody psycho. Casually walking up to someone and shooting, stabbing and kicking them is not normal or acceptable behaviour.
Evidence suggests that this was an event that was planned far in advance, and probably a motivation that was nurtured via various unsavoury groups.
He might well be a psycho, as we'd use the term, but a high-functioning psycho who can plan in advance, and on balance not much more deranged than many in parties which are entirely legal. History shows us that quite sane people will commit psychopathic acts once peer pressure/example has normalised such behaviour - an excellent book called Soldaten portrays this grippingly.
Let's not forget, it's not just fringe political parties that advocate murder (or "execution of traitors") UKIP officials have done so with monotonous regularity recently - look at the examples of Jason Lock and Gordon Ferguson.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Evidence suggests that this was an event that was planned far in advance, and probably a motivation that was nurtured via various unsavoury groups.
He might well be a psycho, as we'd use the term, but a high-functioning psycho who can plan in advance, and on balance not much more deranged than many in parties which are entirely legal. History shows us that quite sane people will commit psychopathic acts once peer pressure/example has normalised such behaviour - an excellent book called Soldaten portrays this grippingly.
Let's not forget, it's not just fringe political parties that advocate murder (or "execution of traitors") UKIP officials have done so with monotonous regularity recently - look at the examples of Jason Lock and Gordon Ferguson.
Yes but the difference is, the UKIP guys actually do something about the zealous idiots. Britain First, does not.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Evidence suggests that this was an event that was planned far in advance, and probably a motivation that was nurtured via various unsavoury groups.
He might well be a psycho, as we'd use the term, but a high-functioning psycho who can plan in advance, and on balance not much more deranged than many in parties which are entirely legal. History shows us that quite sane people will commit psychopathic acts once peer pressure/example has normalised such behaviour - an excellent book called Soldaten portrays this grippingly.
Let's not forget, it's not just fringe political parties that advocate murder (or "execution of traitors") UKIP officials have done so with monotonous regularity recently - look at the examples of Jason Lock and Gordon Ferguson.
Yes but the difference is, the UKIP guys actually do something about the zealous idiots. Britain First, does not.
Usually what they do is get them to stand for elected office.
Well, is every murderer mentally ill then? Should we stop assuming anyone who plans a murder has agency?
The guy killed her for political reasons, to advance a clear political aim, which he has stated. He killed her because of her stance on refugees and immigration.
There is a double standard at play here when we try and write this guy off as mentally ill and play down the political aspect to his crime, and you see it in pretty much every crime committed by "one of us".
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except he didn't "go crazy". It was a premeditated attack influenced by his political ideals.
Yeah, because that's a completely normal thing to do.
You are doing yourself a great disservice by equating every wildly disagreeable act with mental illness of such a nature that the person is no longer legally responsible for their actions.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except he didn't "go crazy". It was a premeditated attack influenced by his political ideals.
Yeah, because that's a completely normal thing to do.
For someone who has bought heavily into extreme right-wing propaganda? Yes, yes it is. Violence is always in the armouries of the groups he was getting involved with and often it is one of the first things these groups reach for when they're not getting their way. Is that wrong? Yes, but that doesn't mean that these people are suffering from a psychotic break or are psychopaths. They are something much worse, they are people who understand the effects of their actions and who are capable of compassion and empathy but do these acts anyway.
Surely the basic concept of terrorism is that the terrorist fully understands the psychological effects of his crimes, otherwise he would not see any political point in them.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except he didn't "go crazy". It was a premeditated attack influenced by his political ideals.
Yeah, because that's a completely normal thing to do.
You are doing yourself a great disservice by equating every wildly disagreeable act with mental illness of such a nature that the person is no longer legally responsible for their actions.
I think you are doing me a greater disservice by putting words in my mouth. Please quote where I said "every wildly disagreeable act" or "the person is no longer legally responsible for their actions". I never said anything like that, you just pulled it out your ass. I'm not talking about every wildly disagreeable act, I'm talking about this specific act. And I never said he was "no longer legally responsible", I said the guy was "crazy", because he sat in his bedroom for months on end obsessing over a woman who he went on to murder in broad daylight. I never said he was "mentally ill" I said "crazy", there is a difference (Dwain Weston was crazy), and it really wasn't the axial point of my post. My point is that it wasn't a "terrorist attack", it was (in my view) one man's personal and hard to understand vendetta against a politician. The fact that, instead of addressing that point, you people are trying to latch onto an irrelevant adjective, and make this into some big tangent about mental illness, seems like clutching at straws. You need this guy to be clever and calculating, so you can (maybe) label him a terrorist... I don't know what you hope to achieve by that, besides sensationalism. Frankly, I disagree with you, and I think that kind of sensationalism makes you no better than the right-wing rags like the Daily Express and Daily Mail, that try to paint every refugee as a terrorist. Have you learned nothing?
I haven't been on dakka for a few days, and have kept away from the media in that time as well, but upon my return, I see the same ghouls in the media exploiting this poor woman's death to attack the leave campaign.
If all you're going to do is come in and post the same tired stuff, demonising one side while ignoring what another is saying, then you're really better off not posting. Keep it polite.
Smacks wrote: Frankly, I disagree with you, and I think that kind of sensationalism makes you no better than the right-wing rags like the Daily Express and Daily Mail, that try to paint every refugee as a terrorist. Have you learned nothing?
He shouted "Britain first" as he murdered a person famous for their positive view of immigration. Then he went on to say, in court, that his name was "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain". Pointing out that this was ideologically motivated and not some act of abstract "craziness" is not the same thing as saying refugees are terrorists. This man's actions are the logical consequence of the constant rhetoric of the West being under siege, infiltrated and invaded by Muslim hordes used by the right, such as for example UKIP. Exactly like Breivik, who wasn't "crazy" either and while cleverness is irrelevant here both these men certainly were calculating.
Rosebuddy wrote: He shouted "Britain first" as he murdered a person famous for their positive view of immigration. Then he went on to say, in court, that his name was "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain". Pointing out that this was ideologically motivated
Well I agree that it was ideologically motivated, but some people in the thread are conflating "ideologically motivated" with "terrorism".
not some act of abstract "craziness"
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "crazy". It is my view that this guy, and Brevik, and a lot of other shooters (including islamic extremists), aren't right in the head. That doesn't necessarily mean "mentally ill", but they are unquestionably angry, troubled and violent people.
not the same thing as saying refugees are terrorists.
People who misuse the word "terrorist" for dramatic effect, are essentially doing the same thing.
This man's actions are the logical consequence of the constant rhetoric of the West being under siege, infiltrated and invaded by Muslim hordes used by the right, such as for example UKIP.
Do you think it's possible for me to agree with that statement, yet still disagree that his attack constitutes "terrorism".
He wanted to change the hearts and minds of people of a certain political persuasion to the oposite view.
He wanted to do so through the use of fear...fear that should said political figures vote (or speak of voting) a certain way, they would quite possibly face the same fate.
If that kind of action *isn't* terrorism at its very evil heart....then I have no idea what you would define terrorism as.
feeder wrote: This is clearly an act of terrorism. He murdered her because of his political beliefs. It's textbook terror tactics.
Respectfully, murdering people for political ends alone is not the same as terrorism, there needs to be a psychological or intimidation factor (hence the name). That doesn't really exist in this case because everyone involved appears to be in custody. If Britain First had made a statement saying "more politicians will die, if they support remain" then yes, that would be textbook terror tactics, but that isn't what happened. Who does this terrorise? Aside from a reminder to all MPs that disgruntled constituents can be dangerous, the treat seems to have been contained. Michael Gove is probably just as likely to be gunned down by a disgruntled teacher, or David Cameron attacked by PETA. There is a certain danger involved in being a political figure, but that doesn't make every attack terrorism.
Smacks wrote: there needs to be a psychological or intimidation factor (hence the name).
Shooting someone multiple times including in the face followed by stabbing and kicking doesn't rate? The guy being in custody does little to erase the incredibly savage nature of that crime. Political intimidation of the highest order and terrorism are the same thing.
Smacks wrote: there needs to be a psychological or intimidation factor (hence the name).
Shooting someone multiple times including in the face followed by stabbing and kicking doesn't rate? The guy being in custody does little to erase the viscera of that crime.
Did that incident make you worried about your everyday life?
I was worried about going on the Tube after 7/7, especially if I saw an Arabic looking bloke with a beard and a backpack in the carraige. I still went on there and told myself he was just an ordinary bloke who happened to be a Muslim, and there was nothing to worry about. But I was still a bit worried because terrorism had caused a psychological effect. At any rate, nothing did happen, for weeks and months, and the worry wore off.
I don't feel anything like that about the Jo Cox murder. It doesn't seem like the possible precursor of a wave of violent politically related crime.
Smacks wrote: there needs to be a psychological or intimidation factor (hence the name).
Shooting someone multiple times including in the face followed by stabbing and kicking doesn't rate? The guy being in custody does little to erase the incredibly savage nature of that crime.
That kind of thing could happen during any murder or mugging. There are lots of terrifying crimes, but that doesn't make them terror attacks. Perhaps if he planned to attack more, then maybe, but it seems like escape wasn't a key part of his plan. That sounds more like revenge, or vendetta, rather than terror.
I don't really want to link it here, as in the main it detracts from the tragedy of a mum being killed... but there's a paper trail of evidence about Mair, including letters saying it's "sympathisers", rather than "Blacks" who are the real enemy.
He'd been following these extremists for years. Awful that extremist ideas have resurfaced recently - and not just in the UK.
I only skimmed this thread, but being the crazy American I am, I'm going to ask the obvious question that I haven't seen addressed in this thread at all.
What's interesting, is how many mainstream papers quote Farage, saying how unfair it all is - but not reporting such actions, by a local Leave co-ordinator. This has only made local news.
I only skimmed this thread, but being the crazy American I am, I'm going to ask the obvious question that I haven't seen addressed in this thread at all.
How did this lunatic get a fire arm?
We're not entirely sure yet, though eyewitness reports indicate that he needed to reload between each shot, suggesting either an antique pistol or a homemade weapon.
Apparently they found extreme-right literature in his home including a guide on how to build your own gun, so he may have built it himself, which I think is the most likely at this point but we'll see for sure when the trial begins and the gun is entered as evidence, if it has been recovered that is.
I get the feeling if this fella had the capacity to design or download the software and get the design 3-D printed, he would be smart enough to get a decent job and wouldn't spend all his time obsessing over immigrants.
In other news, more Brexit campaigners have been saying what a terrible thing Jo Cox's murder was... for their campaign.
I get the feeling if this fella had the capacity to design or download the software and get the design 3-D printed, he would be smart enough to get a decent job and wouldn't spend all his time obsessing over immigrants.
In other news, more Brexit campaigners have been saying what a terrible thing Jo Cox's murder was... for their campaign.
It's proven that meaningful work, getting out of the house, being involved in rewarding activities, having structure to a day, does improve mental wellbeing.
And I feel misgivings about the "mental illness" thing, I understand well the context. It's sometimes used as a way of diminishing the horror of a crime, a bit like blaming it on the devil - when really an individual is responsible, plus those around who encouraged and or enabled him.
up. Not even 24 
still I'd say this is the wrong thread for that kind of discussion.
