• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Labour MP murdered in shooting/stabbing incident

Status
Not open for further replies.

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,672
Location
Another planet...
Hmm, the Guardian seem to disagree.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/23/thomas-mair-trial-and-the-question-of-terrorism-jo-cox



He was certainly charged with murder rather than a specific terrorism offence (which still gets to me), but the other details seem a bit more nuanced.

There is the argument that if he was prosecuted under a specific anti-terrorism charge it would legitimise his cause. He clearly wanted to spark a race war, but has ended up bringing his diverse fellow constituents closer together. He will only ever be known as a sad, pathetic and misguided scumbag- and that is all he deserves to be known as. I just hope that Cox's children will be able to have as happy and fulfilling childhood as possible after being robbed of their mother in such a cruel and pointless act.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,167
Location
UK
Although I doubt you will get many of the right wing press agreeing

No, they're blaming it on themselves though. Daily Heil headline:

Thomas Mair may have murdered Jo Cox because he feared losing home to immigrants

Where would he get that fear from? Oh yes, the right wing press.
 

zuriblue

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2014
Messages
536
Location
Baden Switzerland
No, they're blaming it on themselves though. Daily Heil headline:



Where would he get that fear from? Oh yes, the right wing press.

I saw that headline, and the fact that they only had one story about Mair in the dead tree edition (and that on page 30) and the only printable word I could think of to describe the Mail was "scum"
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
That's not correct; the CPS did not charge him with any terrorism offences and therefore court did not try him in this way. That's why he was only called a 'terrorist' in inverted commas.

The only reference to terrorism was from the prosecuting QC, giving his own opinion, after the verdict was declared.

That's not true, from his arrest he has been handled under terrorism protocols as this much earlier post says.

From 'Guardian' website:
A man accused of murdering the Labour MP Jo Cox has appeared again in court, ahead of a further appearance next week when he will face a judge under terrorism protocols.

Basically it had been decided that his crime met the definition of terrorism contained in the Terrorism Acts and the post arrest processes defined there could be used if necessary (I assume that a judge made an order under the Terrorism Act along the way). And this use of terrorism protocols has continued as the more recent Guardian article says, with the trial held in London not Leeds (the Old Bailey has more stringent security, specifically designed for terrorist trials). When he's going down for life for murder anyway there's little point in adding less serious specific terrorist offences to the charges, they mostly relate to terrorists who are caught before killing anyone.

The killers of Lee Rigby, were similarly only charged with murder.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,137
Location
SE London

Indeed it wasn't the Mail. It also appears to have nothing to with Thomas Mair, and nothing to do with immigration - neither subject is mentioned in the story - so I'm not sure in what way you think it's relevant to anything in this thread? (Although if it's true, it seems a very sad story. The headline is A social housing firm is evicting 74 families so it can accommodate the homeless)
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,215
Location
No longer here
That's not true, from his arrest he has been handled under terrorism protocols as this much earlier post says.

It is true in that he was not charged with a terrorism offence. That's a fact. Can you explain which "terrorism protocols" were followed? The Guardian comment - a single person's opinion - doesn't state exactly which protocols these are. He implies that because he was tried at the Old Bailey rather than in Yorkshire, that this is some sort of "terrorist protocol". Ordinary murders from outside London are tried all the time at the Old Bailey. People are tried at the Old Bailey (or Woolwich/Kingston etc) because the severity of the case requires a judge experienced enough to deal with it, and/or to prevent local juries from bias or prejudice.

Ultimately, the court and its jury are paramount. They found Mair guilty of murder. They were not even asked to consider if he was to be guilty of a terror offence.

The judge made no mention of terror or terrorism in his sentencing remarks, though he did make reference to Mair's motivation: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/sentencing-remarks-r-v-thomas-mair.pdf

He wasn't charged with a terror offence because the CPS thought, probably rightly, that he could be dealt with adequately under a charge of murder.

Ultimately, as Mair was charged with "only" murder, it is up to us a society to consider whether Mair is a terrorist or not. I am satisfied that he is. I am sure most people reading this thread are, too.

Perhaps a lot of the debate is around semantics - I appreciate there is not consensus on the issue.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
Terrorism protocols are the more strict processes defined in the Terrorism Acts than those applied to normal criminal cases after arrest, the best known is the extended period of detention before charge. Without being an expert in the area, I understand that the police/CPS make an application to a judge to decide if a crime meets the definition of terrorism under the terrorism acts, that these processes may be used as neccessary - there is nothing to say which (if any) have to be used.

The report in the Guardian was not an opinion piece, it was an accurate news report. If you don't like the Guardian, try The Telegraph

Profile | Thomas Mair
Murder of Jo Cox

On 16 June, 2016, far-right fanatic Mair murdered 41-year-old Labour MP Jo Cox in her Batley & Spen constituency. Mair, who shouted "Britain first" during the attack and had a stash of neo-Nazi material at his home, was tried under terrorism protocol. Following a seven-day Old Bailey trial, he was sentenced to prison for the rest of his life.

or The Times.

The man accused of murdering MP Jo Cox will be tried for murder under terrorism protocols, a court heard today.

Thomas Mair, 52, of Birstall, West Yorkshire, confirmed his name as he appeared at the Old Bailey via a video link from Belmarsh prison in southeast London. At an initial hearing at Westminster magistrates’ court on Saturday he had given his name as: “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain”.

The protocol means that Mr Mair’s case will be treated as a terrorism trial and it will be brought swiftly. Special security measures are also set out by the legislation.

This is a complete list of UK terrorist offences as contained in the 2006 Terrorism Act. Which of these would you suggest Mair should have been charged with in addition to murder?
  • Encouragement of terrorism
  • Disseminating terrorist publications
  • Preparation of terrorist acts
  • Training for terrorism
  • Attendance at a place used for terrorist training
  • Making and possession of devices or materials
  • Misuse of devices or material and misuse and damage of facilities
  • Terrorist threats relating to devices, materials or facilities
  • Trespassing etc. on nuclear sites

It's completely irrelevant that he wasn't charged with a "terrorism" offence. Neither were the killers of Lee Rigby, would you try arguing that that its a matter of opinion that they were terrorists?

Mair is a terrorist, pure and simple. There doesn't have to be a "consensus" or opinions, under English Law its a stone cold fact.
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,215
Location
No longer here
I think you're missing my point, though I'm grateful for the extra links provided. Unfortunately they don't specify what the protocols are, which is a little confusing, but that's a problem with the news, not you. I treat news reports with a little scepticism when they all come out with "terrorism protocols" as this sounds like it's come from a single source like a press release or briefing. Nonetheless, I can offer nothing to counter what you've said.

Calling someone a terrorist is, in my view, down to one of two things, which may be mutually exclusive. Firstly, legally, someone may be a terrorist if they're guilty of a terror related offence. That is an open and shut case. Alternatively, or alongside, that person might be deemed to be a terrorist by people if their acts follow certain criteria - such as Mair's. It isn't, in my opinion, the gift of the CPS or judiciary to label someone a terrorist prior to the conclusion of their trial. Just because someone is tried under "terror protocols" doesn't in itself make them a terrorist.

I can't offer an opinion on what else Mair might have been charged with because I don't know what evidence there was, nor what might stand up in court. Preparing for acts of terrorism seems about right, as he researched his crime quite meticulously, purchased weapons and read material. But then, IANAL.

I would certainly argue that it is a matter of opinion that the Rigby killers were terrorists. Legally, they are guilty of murder. Hence, it is up to us to decide whether the terrorism hat fits. I am certain that all right-thinking people, including you, I and everyone else in the western world, consider them terrorists.

Again, I think there's a bit of semantics coming into play.
 
Last edited:

Crossover

Established Member
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Messages
9,253
Location
Yorkshire
The latest news is that the authorities are now hunting for those who sold the gun to Mr Mair that was used in the attack
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think you're missing my point, though I'm grateful for the extra links provided. Unfortunately they don't specify what the protocols are, which is a little confusing, but that's a problem with the news, not you. I treat news reports with a little scepticism when they all come out with "terrorism protocols" as this sounds like it's come from a single source like a press release or briefing. Nonetheless, I can offer nothing to counter what you've said.

Calling someone a terrorist is, in my view, down to one of two things, which may be mutually exclusive. Firstly, legally, someone may be a terrorist if they're guilty of a terror related offence. That is an open and shut case. Alternatively, or alongside, that person might be deemed to be a terrorist by people if their acts follow certain criteria - such as Mair's. It isn't, in my opinion, the gift of the CPS or judiciary to label someone a terrorist prior to the conclusion of their trial. Just because someone is tried under "terror protocols" doesn't in itself make them a terrorist.

I can't offer an opinion on what else Mair might have been charged with because I don't know what evidence there was, nor what might stand up in court. Preparing for acts of terrorism seems about right, as he researched his crime quite meticulously, purchased weapons and read material. But then, IANAL.

I would certainly argue that it is a matter of opinion that the Rigby killers were terrorists. Legally, they are guilty of murder. Hence, it is up to us to decide whether the terrorism hat fits. I am certain that all right-thinking people, including you, I and everyone else in the western world, consider them terrorists.

Again, I think there's a bit of semantics coming into play.

I believe one of the aspects of being held under terrorism protocol was transfer to a non-local prison and trial in one of the main courts rather than locally. I am prepared to be corrected though
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
I think you're missing my point, though I'm grateful for the extra links provided. Unfortunately they don't specify what the protocols are, which is a little confusing, but that's a problem with the news, not you. I treat news reports with a little scepticism when they all come out with "terrorism protocols" as this sounds like it's come from a single source like a press release or briefing. Nonetheless, I can offer nothing to counter what you've said.

Calling someone a terrorist is, in my view, down to one of two things, which may be mutually exclusive. Firstly, legally, someone may be a terrorist if they're guilty of a terror related offence. That is an open and shut case. Alternatively, or alongside, that person might be deemed to be a terrorist by people if their acts follow certain criteria - such as Mair's. It isn't, in my opinion, the gift of the CPS or judiciary to label someone a terrorist prior to the conclusion of their trial. Just because someone is tried under "terror protocols" doesn't in itself make them a terrorist.

I can't offer an opinion on what else Mair might have been charged with because I don't know what evidence there was, nor what might stand up in court. Preparing for acts of terrorism seems about right, as he researched his crime quite meticulously, purchased weapons and read material. But then, IANAL.

I would certainly argue that it is a matter of opinion that the Rigby killers were terrorists. Legally, they are guilty of murder. Hence, it is up to us to decide whether the terrorism hat fits. I am certain that all right-thinking people, including you, I and everyone else in the western world, consider them terrorists.

Again, I think there's a bit of semantics coming into play.

I know we live in a post-truth world, but seriously you can offer nothing to counter the facts I've presented, but continue to express non factual "opinions" with absolutely no evidence to back them up? :roll: I'm not missing your point, just I don't find it at all productive discussing your "opinions" and "scepticism" when there are hard facts in place.

Just one correction, the source for case being handled under terror protocols was not a press release or a briefing as you have speculated while presenting no evidence whatsoever, if you read the Times quote, it was announced in the Old Bailey.

Otherwise I'm out of here, you may not agree with the law that the judiciary decides whether or not an offence meets the legal definition of terrorism, but its a fact that that's the law, whatever "opinions" you hold.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The latest news is that the authorities are now hunting for those who sold the gun to Mr Mair that was used in the attack
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I believe one of the aspects of being held under terrorism protocol was transfer to a non-local prison and trial in one of the main courts rather than locally. I am prepared to be corrected though

AFAIK that's correct, most (all?) initial appearances before a magistrate are at a secure court at Westminster magistrates court instead of the local magistrates, and all appearances before a judge are automatically at the high-security court 2 at the Old Bailey. Thats one reason why it has to be decided at a very early stage whether the offence is terrorist-related or not, its too late to leave that decision to a jury at a trial.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,215
Location
No longer here
I know we live in a post-truth world, but seriously you can offer nothing to counter the facts I've presented, but continue to express non factual "opinions" with absolutely no evidence to back them up? :roll: I'm not missing your point, just I don't find it at all productive discussing your "opinions" and "scepticism" when there are hard facts in place.

Just one correction, the source for case being handled under terror protocols was not a press release or a briefing as you have speculated while presenting no evidence whatsoever, if you read the Times quote, it was announced in the Old Bailey.

Otherwise I'm out of here, you may not agree with the law that the judiciary decides whether or not an offence meets the legal definition of terrorism, but its a fact that that's the law, whatever "opinions" you hold.

I was quite clear that those were my opinions ("in my view", "in my opinion") and wasn't positing them as fact. Actually, I have repeatedly asked for more detail on the facts. I accept neither you nor I are lawyers.

The sole fact that someone is tried at the Old Bailey under terror protocols does not make them legally a terrorist I'm afraid. For the fact is, had he been tried under "terror protocols" and been found innocent, he would not legally be a terrorist, do you agree?

I assume you would agree with that, so if someone was tried under these protocols and found to be a murderer, but not guilty of a terror offence, is it so hard to think that legally he is a murderer and not a terrorist?

It is factually incorrect to claim he is definitely a terrorist - a "stone cold fact" under English law. Look at the headlines, which use inverted commas. There's a good reason they do.

The judiciary does not decide someone's criminality or guilt unless it is in a Diplock court.
 

Phil.

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
1,323
Location
Penzance
Indeed it wasn't the Mail. It also appears to have nothing to with Thomas Mair, and nothing to do with immigration - neither subject is mentioned in the story - so I'm not sure in what way you think it's relevant to anything in this thread? (Although if it's true, it seems a very sad story. The headline is A social housing firm is evicting 74 families so it can accommodate the homeless)

What the Mirror didn't mention - well they wouldn't would they - was that many of the "homeless" are migrants. That was/is the connection as Mair was using migrants taking housing as an excuse for his actions. It's just a good example of how it's not always "newspapers" like the mail that can twist things around.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,137
Location
SE London
What the Mirror didn't mention - well they wouldn't would they - was that many of the "homeless" are migrants. That was/is the connection as Mair was using migrants taking housing as an excuse for his actions. It's just a good example of how it's not always "newspapers" like the mail that can twist things around.

That's a very tenuous connection. Firstly. While it's true that many homeless are migrants, it's also true that many are British. I haven't been able to track down any firm statistics on homeless by nationality, but I've also not been able to find any indication that the majority of homeless are not British, so it seems most plausible that migrants make up a significant minority of homeless people.

Further, many migrants are not entitled to local authority support - which of course is one of the reasons why many migrants become and remain homeless. I don't know the precise situation in Peterborough, but since it's a local authority doing the housing, they are clearly only likely to housing those who are eligible for local authority support - which would tend for the most part to imply British citizens or people who are permanently resident here. It therefore seems very likely, based on what little I can find out, that most of those being housed would be British people. You suggest some bias by the Mirror, but I've also found several other reports about the incident in various different online sources - including the original petition on the issue. None that I've found mention anything whatsoever about migrants. Given that immigration is such hot political subject, you'd have thought that if the council was primarily housing migrants, someone (such as the Mail or the Express :) ) would be kicking up a big fuss about that, but no one appears to be doing so.

So - although I can't find out any definite facts about it - it certainly looks very probable that you're looking for migrant connections where there isn't really anything of substance. (Although I do think kicking existing tenants out is a pretty appalling thing to do, no matter what the intentions are).
 
Last edited:

Phil.

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
1,323
Location
Penzance
That's a very tenuous connection. Firstly. While it's true that many homeless are migrants, it's also true that many are British. I haven't been able to track down any firm statistics on homeless by nationality, but I've also not been able to find any indication that the majority of homeless are not British, so it seems most plausible that migrants make up a significant minority of homeless people.

Further, many migrants are not entitled to local authority support - which of course is one of the reasons why many migrants become and remain homeless. I don't know the precise situation in Peterborough, but since it's a local authority doing the housing, they are clearly only likely to housing those who are eligible for local authority support - which would tend for the most part to imply British citizens or people who are permanently resident here. It therefore seems very likely, based on what little I can find out, that most of those being housed would be British people. You suggest some bias by the Mirror, but I've also found several other reports about the incident in various different online sources - including the original petition on the issue. None that I've found mention anything whatsoever about migrants. Given that immigration is such hot political subject, you'd have thought that if the council was primarily housing migrants, someone (such as the Mail or the Express :) ) would be kicking up a big fuss about that, but no one appears to be doing so.

So - although I can't find out any definite facts about it - it certainly looks very probable that you're looking for migrant connections where there isn't really anything of substance. (Although I do think kicking existing tenants out is a pretty appalling thing to do, no matter what the intentions are).

I wasn't but the man Mair was.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,055
Location
UK
Perhaps the same people who gave him the idea in the first place?

Who knows? Around the time of the referendum, it was quite shocking to see and read so many racist things all over the place, including from Facebook friends - as if the whole thing was about voting to deport anyone foreign so we 'got our country back', and very little about the EU itself (well, bar the £350m a week figure).

It would seem that the worst of this has now pretty much passed. Or at least people aren't as vocal anymore.

I can't imagine many people have changed their views, but now they're just able to say they want hard Brexit and not have to explain why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top