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.

 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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 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.

Spot on.

 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.

Just heard on Sky that a former BNP member is contesting the by election in Jo Cox's constituency. Fething cretin.

Apparently the last time Jack Buckby tried to win a constituency he got 0.02% of the vote.

You guys heard his statemenf in the court yeah? Politically motivated murder. Call it terrorism, because it is.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

Yeah last I read, he proclaimed her a traiter and that Britain should be first.

The only "mental health" issue he has is that he actually carried through with murdering someone.

Otherwise...lets stop pussyfooting around the issue and call it a terrorist amd politically motivated attack...dare I say..assassination.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 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.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 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.

 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.

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".

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

Disgusting

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".