Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

dæl wrote:
whembly wrote:
snip

That article contains such staggering ignorance.

From my perspective across the pond...

You have these jihadi preachers on the dole... inflaming these sorts of things.

Then, these terrorists do these horrible things in broad daylight.

And yet, the police is arresting people for making comments on Facebook deemed inappropirate...

Not exactly getting to the root causes IMO...

**MeanGreenStompa**

Jihadin wrote:
Not egging this but....is UK Parliament getting ready to start a push for new laws?

They won't do gak, if anything, there will be an enquiry into why the police shot the bastards and if they couldn't have just been enticed into the van with a cup of tea, a leaflet on tolerance and a halal biscuit.

I read something today, As a country we need to ask the question; How did our society fail the two men who did this?, and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. We failed them? We gave them a country with free and excellent education, state healthcare and welfare benefits, a vast network of charities, support groups and a free and open society to be whatever they wanted to be and yet some people think we should shoulder blame for this young man's terrible, savage and wicked murder because we didn't provide... something else, something more that these two fething monsters needed to not take knives and instruments of butchery to a young man prone on the street?

We failed them?

They Failed Us.

**mwnciboo**

It is the weak-minded and lost, the easily led sheep that convert to extremists. These are the lost, stupid, unloved, lacking direction in life, gullable, prone to crack under peer pressure and the damned usually found in UK Prisons.

The second suspect got involved in Gang Stuff, ran away due to a Gang-land murder. Ended up in prison and went from Christian to muslim by the time he was released.

As an Aside; Isn't this what or similiar to what the Aryan Brotherhood does in US Prisons?

Just to be clear the Mr Choudary I was talking about earlier taking £24,000 from our taxes, is this man...Not one of the suspects.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22650053

**dæl**

whembly wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578500683230354830.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

London

How many ignored warnings does it take? That is one question that should hang over Britain after the horror of the daytime murder of a British soldier on the streets of south London. On Wednesday afternoon, Drummer Lee Rigby was killed in Woolwich by two men wielding large knives and shouting "Allahu akbar"—God is great.
What ignored warnings? What exactly does he think MI5, SIS and GCHQ do all day? They have many suspected terrorists under surveillance and have had steadily increasing powers regarding snooping brought in.

Islamists have been saying for years they would do this. They have planned to do it. And now they have done it.
And a serious plot has been stopped almost every year this century. The liquid bombs incident in 07 for example, is believed to have saved over 2500 lives

he attack itself is not surprising. What is surprising is that British society remains so utterly unwilling not just to deal with this threat, but even to admit its existence. Politicians have called the Woolwich killing "unforgivable" and "barbarous." But expressions of anger should not really be enough.
So what is enough? What exactly is he calling for here?

Attempts to attack military targets in Britain go back to before the millennium and even before, it is important to note, the war on terror. In 1998 Amer Mirza, a member of the now-banned extremist group al Muhajiroun, attempted to petrol-bomb British army barracks. In 2007, a cell of Muslim men was found guilty of plotting to kidnap and behead a British soldier in Birmingham. The plan had been to take the soldier to a lock-up garage and cut off his head "like a pig." They wanted to film this act on camera and send it around the world to cause maximum terror.

In 2009, al Muhajiroun protested at a homecoming parade in Luton for British troops returning from Afghanistan. Carrying banners saying "go to hell," "butchers" and "terrorists," the group was protected by British police officers from an increasingly irate crowd of locals. The resulting outrage toward the police gave rise to the deeply troubling English Defence League, a street protest movement that often turns violent.
I doubt I am allowed to post the things found on the banners of the EDL, they are also protected by the police, as are the anti-fascists who in turn protest about them. That is the price of freedom of speech and the right to protest.

Now comes the attack in Woolwich, which the perpetrators—as with the earlier cell—wished to be observed and even filmed. Reports suggest that they invited people to capture their actions on video. The perpetrators gave interviews, machetes in hand, to bystanders with cameras. This horrific scene is something that will stick in the memory.

But it should also have been foreseen. Instead we entered the stage of denial. For there is already, in the reaction to events, more than a hint of what I have previously termed "Toulouse syndrome." The term is named after the attacks last year carried out by a jihadist called Mohammed Merah, who killed three French soldiers in a rampage that concluded with the murders of four French Jews at a school in Toulouse.

In the early stages of the attacks, when little was known, there was significant speculation that the culprit was a far-right extremist. At that stage everybody knew what they were going to say. But once the culprit turned out to be an Islamist, the gaze nearly fell away completely. "Nothing to see here, please move on" was the order of the day.
This is absolute nonsense, the media's gaze fell away? I don't think he has been looking at the media then. The debate in Islamism has been centre stage ever since the attack and numerous programmes have made attempts to analyse and debate the motivations of the attackers and what can be done to move young Muslims away from radicalisation. To claim the media have ignored the subject of Islamism is at best woefully misinformed but more likely an outright lie.

"Toulouse syndrome" also touched Boston last month. After the bombing at the marathon, media and politicians waited, hoping—some even said as much—that the attackers would be tea-party types. Then everybody would know what to say. But when it turned out to be Islamists?

So it is with the Woolwich killing, which British officials have lined up to denounce. Yes it is sickening. Of course it is barbaric. But what of it? Even all these years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2011, our societies remain unfit for purpose in facing up to—and facing down—Islamic extremism.

Too many still seek refuge in ignorance and denial that was so memorably displayed by U.S. officials after the Fort Hood shooting in 2009. A man who was a member of the American armed forces, Maj. Nidal Hasan, gunned down his colleagues while shouting "Allahu akbar." On that occasion the American government, like the French government before it and the British government this week, decided to focus on everything about the attack other than what really mattered: the motive. Fort Hood was put down to a case of workplace violence.
Questioning the motives of the attackers has been a big part of the media's coverage, for someone who claims to be part of think tank, he would do well to start watching newsnight, question time and other parts of the media.

There will be many angles to the events in London that must be addressed in the coming days, and we can hope many will receive the appropriate level of public attention. Among them will be one particularly unpleasant irony.

Most of the extremists who have repeatedly expressed their hatred of British soldiers are themselves supported by the British state. A prominent hate-preacher—Anjem Choudary, a leader of the disbanded al Muhajiroun—was even caught on video earlier this year extolling Britain's "jihad-seekers' allowance." As he explained to his followers, "The normal situation, really, is to take money from the kafir"—a slur for non-Muslims. "Allahu akbar. We take the money."

After the video showed up online, a BBC reporter asked Mr. Choudary to clarify how much he's taking—the press has long reported a sum of £25,000 ($37,770) per year. "It's irrelevant," Mr. Choudary replied.

This would not be the first time a country has paid both sides in a conflict. But if the reported figure is anywhere near accurate, it would surely be the first time in human history that a society has paid its opponents better than it pays its own. A British soldier can expect to start in the army on a salary of around £16,000 ($24,172).
A person on benefits receives exactly £3744 a year in jobseekers allowance, any payments over that are housing and council tax benefits, which a worker on £16k a year will also receive, the worker will also receive tax credits. So who is better off in this instance?

The events in south London must cause a re-evaluation by British society of the insanity we have been permitting. The question is not how sad we feel. The only question should be what we do about it.
These events require a re-evaluation of society exactly the same amount as when David Cameron bought a cat required a re-evaluation of society. Changing the fabric of a country because of a murder is the stupidest suggestion I have ever heard.

Now, what I take away from this is a man who has something he wants from government and who is using this tragedy as a justification and leverage for it, but then I get quite skeptical when lobbyists start making statements that don't have much in the way of balance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Not egging this but....is UK Parliament getting ready to start a push for new laws?

It would appear that a lot of commentators have started singing the praises of the internet communications bill.

**mwnciboo**

NEVER BLAME THE SECURITY SERVICES!!!!

They have to be lucky all the time to stop all of these crimes.

The Criminals only have to lucky once.

This is exactly like post 9/11 when people blame the CIA and FBI and not the people who committed the act.

"Changing the fabric of a country because of a murder is the stupidest suggestion I have ever heard."

Assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand - One Death - Empires fell.

One mans death can change the very fabric of society, we just cannot predict the impact of these events, it's unlikely but it's neither stupid or impossible.

A person on benefits receives exactly £3744 a year in jobseekers allowance, any payments over that are housing and council tax benefits, which a worker on £16k a year will also receive, the worker will also receive tax credits. So who is better off in this instance?

I don't know maybe the person who doesn't have to work Minimum wage 40hrs week, and can fap themselves into a Coma whilst watching TV all day?

**Medium of Death**

mwnciboo wrote:

Paying that b****** Anjem Choudary, a leader of the disbanded al Muhajiroun, £24,000 a year from our Tax to live our country and preach hate, less than we pay a Soldier is indeed complete insanity.

Sorry what? This can't be right, surely?

**Jihadin**

Dang..we need to show them more love...........

**mwnciboo**

Medium of Death wrote:
mwnciboo wrote:

Paying that b****** Anjem Choudary, a leader of the disbanded al Muhajiroun, £24,000 a year from our Tax to live our country and preach hate, less than we pay a Soldier is indeed complete insanity.

Sorry what? This can't be right, surely?

Tabloid criticism of Islam4UK and Choudary since news of the proposed march first became public has, generally, been vitriolic. The Sun printed an article on 6 January which claimed that Choudary was in receipt of state benefits in the region of £25,000 and said: "British-born father-of-four Choudary is notoriously vague about whether he works or has other money coming in." It continued, "He is understood to be employed by a Muslim organisation on a shoestring wage, which allows him to claim income support and free time to spread his hatred."Choudary had first commented on the matter to the Evening Standard months earlier, stating "I don't think it's of any importance".[66] While generally, follow-up reporting of The Sun's article was restricted to other tabloid newspapers, on 12 January Choudary was asked to clarify the matter by ITN reporter Angus Walker. Choudary replied "The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it. You don't lie and you don't cheat – that is what the prophet said. I am not doing anything illegal." Appearing on the BBC's The Daily Politics on 14 January, presenter Andrew Neil discussed with Choudary his opinions on the banning of Islam4UK, before asking him to comment on his financial status, claiming that it was "relevant to our viewers". Choudary told Neil that his finances were a personal matter, and that he was "doing something, and I don't want to discuss that with you. I'm not on Jobseeker's allowance, but at the same time I have family allowance, I have very firmly held views which I'm propagating at the same time." Responding to the media's criticism of him, Choudary said "I do believe that people have been whipped up into an anti-Islam anti-Muslim frenzy."

This has been being batted around for a good 18 months now. A lot of reporters are after his financal information, they'll eventually get it. But I have no reason to dis-believe the 4 different news outlets that investigated this.

**uk_crow**

Medium of Death wrote:
Sorry what? This can't be right, surely?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279972/Anjem-Choudary-Hate-preacher-pocketing-25-000-year-benefits-calls-fanatics-live-state.html

Apparently so and lives in a £320,000 house.....

**dæl**

mwnciboo wrote:

A person on benefits receives exactly £3744 a year in jobseekers allowance, any payments over that are housing and council tax benefits, which a worker on £16k a year will also receive, the worker will also receive tax credits. So who is better off in this instance?

I don't know maybe the person who doesn't have to work Minimum wage 40hrs week, and can fap themselves into a Coma whilst watching TV all day?

And the extra £13,000 a year should be suitable compensation for those 40hours a week.

**mwnciboo**

dæl wrote:
mwnciboo wrote:

A person on benefits receives exactly £3744 a year in jobseekers allowance, any payments over that are housing and council tax benefits, which a worker on £16k a year will also receive, the worker will also receive tax credits. So who is better off in this instance?

I don't know maybe the person who doesn't have to work Minimum wage 40hrs week, and can fap themselves into a Coma whilst watching TV all day?

And the extra £13,000 a year should be suitable compensation for those 40hours a week.

Not quite true, because he can also have Child Benefits and Child Tax credit?

It is entirely possible to have a decent standard of living, living in New Social Housing, with 4 Kids, earning Jobseekers, not paying Council Tax, Housing Benefit (now paid to the individual not the Landlord) Child benefit, free Healthcare.

Doing casual work, keeping the money under the Radar so you don't get taxed.

Lets ask one of our American Cousins, if they get all of the above for doing nothing but sitting at home doing nothing, would they get pissed off that people chose to live off these Handouts and their own taxes were funding it?

Then consider the Family of 4 - Not working living in a £320,000 house ($500,000 Dollar House!) paid for by the state, because they live in London.

In the UK it really doesn't pay to work below a certain Threshold, just bang out some Kids and start grabbing the Handouts.

Even better we can fund the Subversive Enemies within who want to kill, maim and destroy our society and show contempt for our Customs, Laws and Political Constitution. Yeah all told I'm happy working my ass off on the Higher Tax Bracket paying 45% of my salary plus, to subsidize layabouts, drunks, drug users, social detritus, wastrels and enemies of the state so they can stay home all day watching Jeremy Kyle on Daytime TV.

The People of the UK want for NOTHING....NOTHING....Free School....Free Healthcare...Free Housing.....Free Money to Live...... Not even Americans get this.

**whembly**

We all need to :

Nevermind... brb!

**dæl**

mwnciboo wrote:
dæl wrote:
mwnciboo wrote:

A person on benefits receives exactly £3744 a year in jobseekers allowance, any payments over that are housing and council tax benefits, which a worker on £16k a year will also receive, the worker will also receive tax credits. So who is better off in this instance?

I don't know maybe the person who doesn't have to work Minimum wage 40hrs week, and can fap themselves into a Coma whilst watching TV all day?

And the extra £13,000 a year should be suitable compensation for those 40hours a week.

Not quite true, because he can also have Child Benefits and Child Tax credit?

It is entirely possible to have a decent standard of living, living in New Social Housing, with 4 Kids, earning Jobseekers, not paying Council Tax, Housing Benefit (now paid to the individual not the Landlord) Child benefit, free Healthcare.

Doing casual work, keeping the money under the Radar so you don't get taxed.

Lets ask one of our American Cousins, if they get all of the above for doing nothing but sitting at home doing nothing, would they get pissed off that people chose to live off these Handouts and their own taxes were funding it?

Then consider the Family of 4 - Not working living in a £320,000 house ($500,000 Dollar House!) paid for by the state, because they live in London.

In the UK it really doesn't pay to work below a certain Threshold, just bang out some Kids and start grabbing the Handouts.

Even better we can fund the Subversive Enemies within who want to kill, maim and destroy our society and show contempt for our Customs, Laws and Political Constitution.

You don't get tax credits when on JSA. Child benefit though, is universal and paid when working,

So your argument is that someone on benefits can commit fraud and work. Fraud is fraud and is a serious crime, I could make lots of money robbing banks as well.

But you said your issue was them staying at home fapping. If they are working illegally then they aren't at home are they?

I'm guessing you have never actually had to live on 3grand a year while jumping through whatever hoops the jobcentre has. I'm not saying that it's a hard life and woe is those who live it, I am saying that unless you have actually lived it you have no idea what you are talking about.

**uk_crow**

Then consider the Family of 4 - Not working living in a £320,000 house ($500,000 Dollar House!) paid for by the state, because they live in London.

In the UK it really doesn't pay to work below a certain Threshold, just bang out some Kids and start grabbing the Handouts.

Even better we can fund the Subversive Enemies within who want to kill, maim and destroy our society and show contempt for our Customs, Laws and Political Constitution.

That is the problem, why do i have to pay taxes to put him in a london house, when all he wants to see is western society brought to his knees? Seems to be serving him well doesn't it? If he hates it so much why doesn't he just sod off to be with his brothers in the Pakistani borderlands. I'm not really interested in his human rights or anything, he doesn't deserve a penny off a country and the people that he loathes so much.

**Medium of Death**

mwnciboo wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
mwnciboo wrote:

Paying that b****** Anjem Choudary, a leader of the disbanded al Muhajiroun, £24,000 a year from our Tax to live our country and preach hate, less than we pay a Soldier is indeed complete insanity.

Sorry what? This can't be right, surely?

Tabloid criticism of Islam4UK and Choudary since news of the proposed march first became public has, generally, been vitriolic. The Sun printed an article on 6 January which claimed that Choudary was in receipt of state benefits in the region of £25,000 and said: "British-born father-of-four Choudary is notoriously vague about whether he works or has other money coming in." It continued, "He is understood to be employed by a Muslim organisation on a shoestring wage, which allows him to claim income support and free time to spread his hatred."Choudary had first commented on the matter to the Evening Standard months earlier, stating "I don't think it's of any importance".[66] While generally, follow-up reporting of The Sun's article was restricted to other tabloid newspapers, on 12 January Choudary was asked to clarify the matter by ITN reporter Angus Walker. Choudary replied "The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it. You don't lie and you don't cheat – that is what the prophet said. I am not doing anything illegal." Appearing on the BBC's The Daily Politics on 14 January, presenter Andrew Neil discussed with Choudary his opinions on the banning of Islam4UK, before asking him to comment on his financial status, claiming that it was "relevant to our viewers". Choudary told Neil that his finances were a personal matter, and that he was "doing something, and I don't want to discuss that with you. I'm not on Jobseeker's allowance, but at the same time I have family allowance, I have very firmly held views which I'm propagating at the same time." Responding to the media's criticism of him, Choudary said "I do believe that people have been whipped up into an anti-Islam anti-Muslim frenzy."

This has been being batted around for a good 18 months now. A lot of reporters are after his financal information, they'll eventually get it. But I have no reason to dis-believe the 4 different news outlets that investigated this.

Cheers for posting that man, wasn't doubting you for what it's worth. Can't believe that's allowed to happen. Country is a joke sometimes.

**MeanGreenStompa**

uk_crow wrote:

That is the problem, why do i have to pay taxes to put him in a london house, when all he wants to see is western society brought to his knees? Seems to be serving him well doesn't it? If he hates it so much why doesn't he just sod off to be with his brothers in the Pakistani borderlands. I'm not really interested in his human rights or anything, he doesn't deserve a penny off a country and the people that he loathes so much.

Because it's dirty and actually dangerous.

**Jihadin**

Sounds like a safe haven in the UK........

**Andrew1975**

Well we know the family of the boston bombers received quite a bit of aid from the US also.

**Jihadin**

I also mention where the funds came from on that thread

**mwnciboo**

You don't get tax credits when on JSA. Child benefit though, is universal and paid when working,

So your argument is that someone on benefits can commit fraud and work. Fraud is fraud and is a serious crime, I could make lots of money robbing banks as well.

But you said your issue was them staying at home fapping. If they are working illegally then they aren't at home are they?

I'm guessing you have never actually had to live on 3grand a year while jumping through whatever hoops the jobcentre has. I'm not saying that it's a hard life and woe is those who live it, I am saying that unless you have actually lived it you have no idea what you are talking about.

In all fairness, I should have put in the line about moonlight Working and not paying tax that has clouded the issue.

Don't tell me just because I haven't signed-on I cannot have an opinion on this? So what if the Job-Centre makes you jump through hoops - It's Job Seekers Allowance - It's for Job Seekers. Plenty of people take the money and don't seek a Job or Pretend to. There is a significant number of "Unemployable People", those without qualifications, skills, a proper education or even the desire to work. We should help people, but for those who just want money and don't actually really want to work - Let them rot. These are the people who pretend for a month to be interested but have no discipline, so take days off, or turn up late, or take fake sick days. Why would any employer want this crap?

Second point, just because Child Benefit is universal doesn't make it right e.g A Blue-collar Worker Pays their Tax gets some Child Benefit because they don't earn much for their Sweat. Man in a Council house has a child doesn't work, doesn't pay tax but still gets the money paid to him......Explain in anyway shape or form how this is fair?

The Unemployed should be used as huge workforce, you are being paid JSA by the state therefore you should have to do commensurate amount of Work in the Community at the Minimum Wage.

**Palindrome**

mwnciboo wrote:

Explain in anyway shape or form how this is fair?

The welfare of the child is paramount, it is afterall the entire point of the various child benefits. As it is, statistically speaking, children from poor families will have a shorter and poorer life compared to a child from a wealthy family, without child benefits this would be even worse.

**mwnciboo**

It doesn't go to the Child does it? It goes to the Parents, and some of them spend it on things like Drugs, alcohol, Lottery Tickets, keeping 9 Children in a four bed house, before burning it down killing all of his children because

Remember this Scumbag...

I earn a very Good Wage, I loose 45% of it in Direct Taxation, I have a nice House, I pay alot of Council Tax as Well, I use Fuel and I pay alot of VAT on alot of things. Google and Massive Corp's pay almost nil or negligible amounts of Tax, but I'm expected to give up my own personal earnings to underpin a Social Security System that gives money unquestioningly to some of the worst elements in society including the Seditious, criminal underclass.

On top of this we also pay for economic immigrants - Including Health Care.

£115Billion on Social Security = For 70 Million People = £1674 ($2500) per Man/woman or Child regardless of Social status.....This is Insane.

My American Friends who come to visit cannot believe how high Tax is in this Country - They said if this was America there would be riots.

Total Public Spending in the United Kingdom
Central Government and Local Authority

Fiscal Year 2014

Public Pensions £145 billion
National Health Care + £130 billion
State Education + £99 billion
Defence + £45 billion
Social Security + £115 billion
State Protection + £31 billion
Transport + £19 billion
General Government + £17 billion
Other Public Services + £49 billion
Public Sector Interest + £46 billion
Balance + £26 billion
Total Spending = £722 billion

**Palindrome**

mwnciboo wrote:
It doesn't go to the Child does it? It goes to the Parents, and some of them spend it on things like Drugs, alcohol, Lottery Tickets.

Just because some people abuse it doesn't mean that everyone does.

**mwnciboo**

The system needs to be a hell of a lot more robust, if we spent more on Enforcement we could save ourselves a fortune.

We don't even know the true scale of the problem.

We have funded a Lazy Underclass, who have no motivation or incentive to work.

I know there are many young mothers who want to work, but because of Child Care it doesn't pay, I would sooner see Government as an Enabler rather imposing these crazy administrative problems.

I would sooner see, a much lower Tax Rate for the poor with a much Higher Threshold. I have to pay tax, I don't want a cut, I'll pay But I want to see the Poorer People not being penalised for being poor.

Therefore Tax doesn't begin until earning £13,000 above per Annum at say a 10% rate, £13,000 - £20,000, £20,000+ normal Tax rate, £35,000 + Higher, £100,000 + Very High

We need to adjust the entire tax system, we have people who work so badly off, that it's not worth working.

I resent paying taxes for people to sit around Fapping all day, (or producing Kiddies!) doing what they like.

EDIT - For the record I have signed on - in 2000 and because I had savings (because I am prudent) I got shafted as they said I wasn't entitled to JSA? How is that fair? That's when I vowed never to take any Benefit or Money from the Government, I'll make it on my own, pay my own way and I've even managed to get on BUPA. So I pay this ridiculous Millstone of Tax round my neck and I take responsibility for myself and seek to reduce my burden on the state.

**Orlanth**

Actually its not that simple.

In many cases there are no jobs to have, under the previous government state employment was heavily lobsided so that non-ethnic applicants need not apply fior m,any positions, and that eliminated entry level jobs. With no entry level jobs there was no room for the x years of experience to get other jobs etc.
The current government ended this but left those who were disenfranchised with large career gaps that can't be surmounted.

As for giving the unemployment 'jobs' this was tried, however unethical companies look at this as an opportunity for free slaves. Tescos are notorious for this, why hire new staff when you can have workers for free on work experience schemes, Tescos are even more notorious by offering extensions on the schemes on the promise of interviews for permanent jobs then not giving any jobs at the end of the extension, just another extension.
Work experience courses were scrapped by the Government because the scheme is too easily abused and didn't offer enough actual employability.

There is a n underclass of disadvantaged people, not all of whom are 'lazy', others are discriminated against or have mental health issues that preclude employment, in fact the latter are linked, discrimination leads to depression and hopelessness.

This phenomena is understood as 'disempowerment' and governments were all too ready to believe it existed as a part of race discrimination, and countered it. However in doing so they left the door open for discrimination to continue to its mirror opposite.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Could we start a new thread to discuss benefits?

I don't mind the discussion and would enjoy participating, but this is the wrong thread for a huge digressional shift like this.

**Orlanth**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Could we start a new thread to discuss benefits?

I don't mind the discussion and would enjoy participating, but this is the wrong thread for a huge digressional shift like this.

Fair enough.

**dæl**

EDIT:

Could we start a new thread to discuss benefits?

Sorry, wrote this before seeing that, will move it.

**unmercifulconker**

mwnciboo wrote:
NEVER BLAME THE SECURITY SERVICES!!!!

They have to be lucky all the time to stop all of these crimes.

The Criminals only have to lucky once.

This is exactly like post 9/11 when people blame the CIA and FBI and not the people who committed the act.

"Changing the fabric of a country because of a murder is the stupidest suggestion I have ever heard."

Assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand - One Death - Empires fell.

One mans death can change the very fabric of society, we just cannot predict the impact of these events, it's unlikely but it's neither stupid or impossible.

A person on benefits receives exactly £3744 a year in jobseekers allowance, any payments over that are housing and council tax benefits, which a worker on £16k a year will also receive, the worker will also receive tax credits. So who is better off in this instance?

I don't know maybe the person who doesn't have to work Minimum wage 40hrs week, and can fap themselves into a Coma whilst watching TV all day?

Apologists have to blame someone other than the criminals themselves, they see the criminal as never having a choice in the things they do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Holy crap, been some bomb scare in my area outside the TA barracks, the whole road (its a very long road) has been cut off as a package was found.

Edit: ah its dealt with now, the police used a controlled explosion to get rid of it, facebook slightly exaggerating the amount of road cut off.

Thank the services for dealing with it, bomb or not.

**Relapse**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Not egging this but....is UK Parliament getting ready to start a push for new laws?

They won't do gak, if anything, there will be an enquiry into why the police shot the bastards and if they couldn't have just been enticed into the van with a cup of tea, a leaflet on tolerance and a halal biscuit.

I read something today, As a country we need to ask the question; How did our society fail the two men who did this?, and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. We failed them? We gave them a country with free and excellent education, state healthcare and welfare benefits, a vast network of charities, support groups and a free and open society to be whatever they wanted to be and yet some people think we should shoulder blame for this young man's terrible, savage and wicked murder because we didn't provide... something else, something more that these two fething monsters needed to not take knives and instruments of butchery to a young man prone on the street?

We failed them?

They Failed Us.

Marry me, I love you and the way you think.