Andrew Marr 1 Boris Johnson 0

[Wiggles]

Just watched on iplayer. Same old, same old. Boris repeating everything he has said a thousand times already, and avoiding questions, Marr attempting to score points. Boris was constantly peppered for cut backs that had to be made. I think Boris handled the interview quite well under the circumstances.

[Churchill]

Khan had allegedly changed his ways whilst inside having been radicalised at the age of 16 years , but within a year of being back on our streets reverted back to a religious fanatic , one moment at the Rehabilitation of Offenders conference he was all smiles next like a rabid dog he attacked those nearest to him.



If he had not been let out none of this would have happened, there is only one way to make a rabid dog safe either cage it until it dies or put it down

[johnofgwent]

The real question is, why is this particular horrendous murder getting wall to wall coverage lasting many days including a 2 minute silence today?



Every day in the UK there are an average of 2-3 murders, and many more violent assaults.



Every year, there are quite a few multiple murders committed by people from all religions and ethnicity, with the majority of them being committed by white UK citizens (unsurprisingly because white UK citizens are by far the majority).



There are quite a few of these cases where the person committing the murder was previously in prison and had served their sentence and been released.  The re-offending rate for all prisoners released from prison is very high - well over 50%.



How many other people were stabbed to death in London in the last few months by criminals who were known to the police already?  Quite a few.



As such, why are these two particular murders, evil as they are, so much more important than all the others?

Because Labour want to rehabilitate "repentant" Isis murderers like this one,following the prophets instructions to deceive the infidel so as to slay them, and the Tories do not ?



Just a guess mind you.



Oh yeah, one more thing. The second reason I am a full on radicalised hang the fuckers high merchant ...



Google Carl Whant. I'm not entirely convinced he was the one who did it, because something in the trial timeline does not agree with what my family witnessed the night before, but the prosecution seemed fairly happy and the defence didn't give a F@@@ so fair enough.



The problem is, he's promised to kill everyone who put him inside.



Which is why given the chance I'd pull the lever on him myself as my kid is on his hit list

[Barry]

So the reason is basically that the people who were killed were more deserving than other people murdered -

Sorry, did I write that? Oh no I did not.

I'm sure the parents of all those other people will be very happy that you have decided their lives are not worth protecting or improving because they are "undesirables".

Classic Strawman argument. Because I didn't say that either.

Also, weren't you one of the posters arguing that another poster should be removed from the forum because he advocated that old people above a certain age should be killed for the good of society or some rubbish.

Don't remember that, please use the quote facility to show me where.

I suppose that's because they are not undesirables either, but it's fine to argue that young (mainly minority) people who get killed in knife violence are just "reducing the surplus population".

I didn't say that, either.



All in all, a lot of twaddle, trying to make me out to be some sort of monster. Here is the relevant part of what I actually posted:

Your argument is that a terrorist murder is little different to the drug wars going on in the streets of London, is it?

Well, the reason is that not many people care about one gang of criminals taking another out, as it reduces the total number of undesirables on the streets. However, when innocent people like Jodie Chesney get caught in the crossfire it starts to make more news.

[Javert]

Your argument is that a terrorist murder is little different to the drug wars going on in the streets of London, is it?

Well, the reason is that not many people care about one gang of criminals taking another out, as it reduces the total number of undesirables on the streets. However, when innocent people like Jodie Chesney get caught in the crossfire it starts to make more news.



Then there's the facts that 2 people working to create a safer society (We'll perhaps discuss the wisdom of that in another thread), were attacked by a person who had positioned himself, callously and deliberately and secretly, to take out the very people who might undermine his cause, which is to create a Caliphate, or Islamic State by killing every person that gets in the way of that cause.

Terrorism is a scourge. It is a threat to governments, a threat to society in general, where knife crime on the street of London in general is only a threat to a small sector of society.



I haven't even mention the sensitive time in the run up to an election... - but hopefully you might understand the difference now.

So the reason is basically that the people who were killed were more deserving than other people murdered - I'm sure the parents of all those other people will be very happy that you have decided their lives are not worth protecting or improving because they are "undesirables".



Also, weren't you one of the posters arguing that another poster should be removed from the forum because he advocated that old people above a certain age should be killed for the good of society or some rubbish.  I suppose that's because they are not undesirables either, but it's fine to argue that young (mainly minority) people who get killed in knife violence are just "reducing the surplus population".

[Churchill]

What difference is there between organised crime and terrorism?

Terrorists are politically motivated when it comes to Islamic Extremist Terrorism that is motivated by religion, Organised Crime is money orientated

[patman post]

What difference is there between organised crime and terrorism?

I guess it can sometimes get confusing. My take is:—

Some groups use terrorism/nationalism as a cover/excuse to help their illegal wealth gathering through organised crime in local communities (drugs, prostitution, protection, etc, — Northern Ireland hosts such).

Terrorists' sole aim is to create terror among the general population in pursuit of an objective. Their funds might be donated or gained through crime and are used for their ultimate objective rather than earthly luxuries...

[papasmurf]

Some of it does, but IMO it funds International Organized Crime Syndicates

What difference is there between organised crime and terrorism?

[Churchill]

In general term, illegal drugs fund terrorism.

Some of it does, but IMO it funds International Organized Crime Syndicates

[papasmurf]

Your argument is that a terrorist murder is little different to the drug wars going on in the streets of London, is it?

.

In general term, illegal drugs fund terrorism.

[Barry]

The real question is, why is this particular horrendous murder getting wall to wall coverage lasting many days including a 2 minute silence today?



Every day in the UK there are an average of 2-3 murders, and many more violent assaults.



Every year, there are quite a few multiple murders committed by people from all religions and ethnicity, with the majority of them being committed by white UK citizens (unsurprisingly because white UK citizens are by far the majority).



There are quite a few of these cases where the person committing the murder was previously in prison and had served their sentence and been released.  The re-offending rate for all prisoners released from prison is very high - well over 50%.



How many other people were stabbed to death in London in the last few months by criminals who were known to the police already?  Quite a few.



As such, why are these two particular murders, evil as they are, so much more important than all the others?

Your argument is that a terrorist murder is little different to the drug wars going on in the streets of London, is it?

Well, the reason is that not many people care about one gang of criminals taking another out, as it reduces the total number of undesirables on the streets. However, when innocent people like Jodie Chesney get caught in the crossfire it starts to make more news.



Then there's the facts that 2 people working to create a safer society (We'll perhaps discuss the wisdom of that in another thread), were attacked by a person who had positioned himself, callously and deliberately and secretly, to take out the very people who might undermine his cause, which is to create a Caliphate, or Islamic State by killing every person that gets in the way of that cause.

Terrorism is a scourge. It is a threat to governments, a threat to society in general, where knife crime on the street of London in general is only a threat to a small sector of society.



I haven't even mention the sensitive time in the run up to an election... - but hopefully you might understand the difference now.

[Javert]

The real question is, why is this particular horrendous murder getting wall to wall coverage lasting many days including a 2 minute silence today?



Every day in the UK there are an average of 2-3 murders, and many more violent assaults.



Every year, there are quite a few multiple murders committed by people from all religions and ethnicity, with the majority of them being committed by white UK citizens (unsurprisingly because white UK citizens are by far the majority).



There are quite a few of these cases where the person committing the murder was previously in prison and had served their sentence and been released.  The re-offending rate for all prisoners released from prison is very high - well over 50%.



How many other people were stabbed to death in London in the last few months by criminals who were known to the police already?  Quite a few.



As such, why are these two particular murders, evil as they are, so much more important than all the others?

[johnofgwent]

He seems to have taken some lessons from Andrew Neil.  Boris needs badgering, the other leaders have been, why should Boris be left out?

You mean like this...



34 seconds in ...



Marr has been repeatedly cutting across Johnson's answers.



Here he tries to break up Johnson's point about it being the Labour party that demanded automated release by repeatedly ask how many other people have been let out before johnson finishes answering the previous point. At 35 seconds in Johnson answers him, and a second and a half later Marr says "you're trying to avoid my question by answering another" allowing Boris to quite truthfully point out that No, he was not, as he'd just answered it.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50618744">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50618744



Priceless.

[johnofgwent]

Boris came over as a close to gibbering waffling idiot. He really does need to be interviewed by Andrew Neil.

well, against my better judgement, I actually fast forwarded to the interview with boris, past all the lefty shite.



And i could not disagree more with your assessment. given the obvious assasination job marr was paid to do, I thought Boris took him to task very well. He pointed out that the guy was released under legislation introduced by labour and once released he could not be unreleased because that is nhow the system works. He pointed out he put measures in the queens speech - which the remoaners fucked over by forcing boris into this election - which would put an end to this automatic early release of scum like this.



All in all, I thought Boris did rather well.

[Streetwalker]

I would have said 0-0 myself . Marr didn't ask anything worthwhile and Johnson didn't tell us anything we didn't already know . Like most things on the BBC a complete waste of time .