It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Labour MP Jo Cox has died after being shot three times in the street near her office by an attacker

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Thanks for that link. I researched how many homicides by guns the constituents of the UK had in the year 2011 when the data stops. There were 146 deaths by firearm but those stats include suicides.
When you only count the homicides by gun, the total number of deaths in 2011 in the entire UK was 50.
So the population of the UK in 2011 was 63 million and only 50 were killed as the result of a gun.
So only 0.00007% of the population of the UK were murdered by firearms in the year 2011.

It kind of puts things in perspective when you break down the stats.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Honestly i am starting to find it funny.

Really funny that you cannot get this through your head.

Everyone else who is posting get its apart from you.

TERRORISM IS NOT DEFINED IN A LEGAL COURT OF LAW USING A DICTIONARY.

As such when deciding if a act is or is not terrorism your dictionary means about as much as a skid-mark on bog roll!


So you can't explain why agents of the state are better at defining things, qua agents of the state, than private citizens? They're better at it "just because"?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew

Thank you for making your position clear.

It helps me to understand what kind of person you are.

T&Cs mean I can't really respond.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Several witnesses said on Channel 4 and Sky News that Jo Cox intervened in an argument between the man and someone lying on the ground, whom he was kicking. This highly significant fact has so far been ignored by the BBC. It implies that the MP was NOT targetted - she just happened to get in the way and the mentally ill, armed man retaliated. The fact that he happened to be a right-wing white supremacist has NOTHING to do with the referendum, although no doubt some media with a view about the vote may try to turn it their advantage by reporting the killing in a way that makes all Brexiters look like extremist racists. If he did say "Britain first", it would have been said in connection with the argument the man was engaged with with the person he had been kicking when Cox intervened. It was probably not directed at her. It could well be a mistake to jumpt to the conclusion that he attacked her because she was a "Remainer". It was simply because she was trying to stop him hurting the other person.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Honestly i am starting to find it funny.

Really funny that you cannot get this through your head.

Everyone else who is posting get its apart from you.

TERRORISM IS NOT DEFINED IN A LEGAL COURT OF LAW USING A DICTIONARY.

As such when deciding if a act is or is not terrorism your dictionary means about as much as a skid-mark on bog roll!


So you can't explain why agents of the state are better at defining things, qua agents of the state, than private citizens? They're better at it "just because"?


I am not saying they are better only that in a democracy when we vote in our law makers who make laws that the courts then act on in a court of law it is only the legal definitions that carry any weight.

You might think that your dictionary definition is better, you might even think the legal definition is wrong and that is absolutely fine.

However if you were in court and you where charged with terrorism the definition of terrorism that the court would use would be the definition the the Terrorism Act 2000 (and others) have set out not what you personally define terrorism as.

Could you imagine the carnage that it would cause if we said individual definitions are what matter and not the legal ones.

"No your honour, i did not murder my wife because according to me I define murder as doing a very specific dance to a Jackson 5 song and i do not recognise the courts definition of murder as such i must be innocent"
edit on 16-6-2016 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
My heart goes out to our UK members.


Thank you. Deeply shocked here. I heard that she was a rising star in the Labour Party - and that she was also a damn good constituency MP, ie: she listened to her constituents in her MP 'surgeries' as they are called over here, where people can go to their MP and bring up concerns or complaints.
This kind of thing never happens here, frankly. Racking my brain to think of the last time this happened.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
As an American I know nothing of this poor woman's politics but do know murder is murder.Also if everyone started killing all the politicians whose viewpoints we don't agree with,anarchy would be the end result.
There's a right way to change the system and a wrong way.This was obviously the latter.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew

You do know the your so called "agents of the state" aren't some other species but actually are regular human beings, you know they are also "private citizens". The legal definitions were defined by these "private citizens" while they worked in their jobs defining the laws, which they spent over 10 years studying for and becoming experts in their profession.

They are better at it because they actual understand how the "law" works. They didn't get it bestowed upon them as some mythical agent of the state. They did their jobs, they get paid for it, they go home and do whatever regular human being does.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Kali74
My heart goes out to our UK members.


Thank you. Deeply shocked here. I heard that she was a rising star in the Labour Party - and that she was also a damn good constituency MP, ie: she listened to her constituents in her MP 'surgeries' as they are called over here, where people can go to their MP and bring up concerns or complaints.
This kind of thing never happens here, frankly. Racking my brain to think of the last time this happened.


Steven Timms was stabbed in 2010 I think and before that was the Lib Dem guy in Cheltenham attacked by the nutter with the samurai sword. Cant think of any others though there may be more.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The only similar attack like this was in the U.S where someone shot a Senator I believe.
Usually people only throw eggs.
I have a feeling the media attention he will be getting just now was the primary motive.
From what I read the guy was a "nobody", he had no friends, was quite meek from what I gathered and had a none existence essentially, now he's known around the world.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
She seemed to be a compassionate individual.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


I am not saying they are better only that in a democracy when we vote in our law makers


I don't know about you, but I'm not going to delegate my authority away to someone else.

If you want people making and defining rules for you, be my guest and go for it, but have the decency to leave those of us who want no part in the charade out of it.


who make laws that the courts then act on in a court of law it is only the legal definitions that carry any weight.


Yes, that's called a monopoly.


You might think that your dictionary definition is better, you might even think the legal definition is wrong and that is absolutely fine.


Well, good, we can agree on this part.


However if you were in court and you where charged with terrorism the definition of terrorism that the court would use would be the definition the the Terrorism Act 2000 (and others) have set out not what you personally define terrorism as.


You are stating that the court's definition is right because the court is going to use the definition it made up.

duh.

That's called a monopoly on law.

I'll just start my own courts to compete with the state's courts.


Could you imagine the carnage that it would cause if we said individual definitions are what matter and not the legal ones.


Who said anything about individual definitions?

I said that the state has no more authority to define things than the person who wrote the definition of terrorism being "the use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Obviously state officials are not going to use that definition, because it would mean that they, too, are terrorists (they are).


"No your honour, i did not murder my wife because according to me I define murder as doing a very specific dance to Jackson 5 song and i do not recognise the courts definition of murder as such i must be innocent"


This is, ironically, exactly what you just claimed the courts do.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

Y'all need to stop with that cow manure right there neighbour. I note no one is calling this twat a terrorist, despite actions which are clearly that of a terrorist. I am sure he was "just a mentally ill white man" and the affiliations to the far reich uh right racist groups are coincidental ....



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Really, your bring race into it now? Nobody mentioned his colour until you just did, which says more about your mindset than anything else.
Why sex it up by calling him a terrorist? He was a nobody with some repressed hate that murdered a mother. He is a twat, end of.
edit on 16-6-2016 by mclarenmp4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: mclarenmp4


You do know the your so called "agents of the state" aren't some other species but actually are regular human beings,


If they're regular human beings, then why are they able to things that you and I are not allowed to do??

I am not the one imbuing them with a sense of the other-worldly. Those people who think that delegating their authority to someone who "represents their interests" are the ones doing that.

No one can "represent" you better than yourself. No human has any more authority over you than YOU.


you know they are also "private citizens".


Uh, yes, but they do all of the things that you can't do acting in their capacity as public official.


The legal definitions were defined by these "private citizens" while they worked in their jobs defining the laws, which they spent over 10 years studying for and becoming experts in their profession.


So why is Bob the lawyer better at defining the word terrorism than Joe the lexicographer? And why is there a dichotomy between the "general" sense of a word, and the state's monopolized legal-speak?

I could declare myself an expert in any make-believe wooism and force you to follow my views simply because I have you out-bullied.


They are better at it because they actual understand how the "law" works.


Yeah, it's totally complicated.

Someone wants people to do X, so he writes it down and hires some people to force everyone to obey.

ta da.


They didn't get it bestowed upon them as some mythical agent of the state.


Then you and I agree.


They did their jobs, they get paid for it,


Actually, they get paid regardless of what they do. You have no choice in the matter. Your money will be taken from you and given to them, and if you attempt to keep the fruits of your labor, those same people will put you in prison.

It's called racketeering.



they go home and do whatever regular human being does.


You're preaching to the choir.

I already know there is no difference between us. It is the people who glorify the state who have set agents of the state on a pedestal.


edit on 16-6-2016 by CharlestonChew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I provided the reading for you to show that guns are banned in Venezuela with the exception of military, police, and government officials. I was only speaking gun homicides, I provided enough to illustrate my point. You can punch holes in other peoples research all you want.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlestonChew

You might not wish to delegate your responsibility, and to be honest, I am with you on that. If it was a tangible option and there were enough people about who had the gumption to make it happen, I would be right there with the people in insisting on a distributed form of democracy, where we choose, and act for ourselves, rather than relying on forces and systems controlled by a monied few. Absolutely agree.

However intent you are to retain your responsibility, you seem pretty intent on derailing this thread, and making yourself the worst advert for anarchy since the profit driven stupidity that was the Sex Pistols.

If you have any respect for your political position what so ever, you might want to consider how utterly unappealing it is that when faced with the murder of a woman who, for all that she is in politics, actually appears to be a pretty good egg, you can only summon up the emotional response one would normally attribute to a psychopath or a zealot. Well played sir.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: avgguy
That's impossible, guns are illegal there.


It's crazy how ignorance gets 14 stars

There are nearly 2 million legally owned guns in the UK.

150,000 own a firearms certificate.
600,000 own a shotgun certificate.





What pisses me off is there fact that some guns for brains yanks on here are haveing a i told you so circle jerk over this.

Even though this is a extremly rare occurrence.

edit on 16-6-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

TrueBrit, if she were "good" she never would have taken a position working in government. She acted voluntarily to join a hierarchical system that exploits human beings.

All state agents are my enemy. I don't care if they go home at night and sing lullabies to their children, in their capacity as public officials, they support a system that is corrupt according to it's nature.

Government was responsible the death of over 230 million human beings in the 20th century alone.

Governments hold a monopoly over the use of violence, governments hold a monopoly over law, governments hold a monopoly over the interpretation of said laws.

My reaction has no bearing on the validity of anarchism as a political philosophy. That's not how validity works.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I think sometimes it is too easy to see a political opponent as evil, manipulative, just plain bent.


Some are, but we would all do well to remember that there are also conviction politicians who really do believe that they are doing the right thing.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join