Labour MP Jo Cox shot | RIP Jo Cox

Is there any evidence that's actually him?
 
Penna said:
Yes, I would agree - a political assassination by a violent extremist, targeting Mrs Cox specifically, not simply a random person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Terrorists don't usually specifically select (or know anything about) their individual victims, except insofar as they represent something the terrorist opposes or are in a place with its own significance to their "cause".
Click to expand...

I would disagree. Cause if you compared it to f.e. the RAF in West Germany, they select individuals in the first place, the 2. generation aims for people, which was enormous critised by the first ones and the many people which sympathises with them. And everybody would call the RAF terrorists.

In this case, i think only because it was just one person, its not terrorism is false. The last nationalistic terrorism here in germany from the NSU were 3 people, it would have also been possible that it had been only one person. That doesnt matter, the vicitm is aimed for a fanatic nationalistic reason,and that counts. It is not a maniac who stormed somewhere and kill random people.
And all was based on a "network", here in this case british nationalists.
 
Last edited:
Nick 0208 Ldn said:


Quite frankly, there are some in this thread who need to step back and think before they post. We've had snide remarks from the opening page, people looking for arguments over definitions, and now there is open politicisation in play. Above all, I simply cannot imagine that any of this would see approval from Jo Cox herself.
Click to expand...


You're really going to use a staged photo posted by a UKIP MEP as an example of the moral high ground the Caf should aspire to?

What exactly stops this from being a similarly politicised act of misdirection from the side more obviously affected by the implications? At what point does Leavers saying "We shouldn't talk about this (because it might hurt our campaign)" somehow become less of a political power play than Remainers saying "We should talk about this (because it might benefit ours)?"

If anything it's a potentially more shameless act. Denying the woman her own politics in death, for fear of it damaging yours.
 
SteveJ said:
Yes, Nick, I guess we should be ashamed of ourselves; unlike the people who lit the fuse and then stood back while others bore the inevitable brunt of their incendiary rhetoric - they are now calling for dignity and respect when they themselves have shown precisely none, and urge us to show restraint in case the finger is rightly pointed at them.
Click to expand...

Alex99 said:
How can you not politicise a discussion about the politically motivated murder of an active politician?
Click to expand...

Mockney said:
You're really going to use a staged photo posted by a UKIP MEP as an example of the moral high ground the Caf should aspire to?

What exactly stops this from being a similarly politicised act of misdirection from the side more obviously affected by the implications? At what point does Leavers saying "We shouldn't talk about this (because it might hurt our campaign)" somehow become less of a political power play than Remainers saying "We should talk about this (because it might benefit ours)?"

If anything it's a potentially more shameless act. Denying the woman her own politics in death, for fear of it damaging yours.
Click to expand...
This/these.
 
Grinner said:
The IRA did frequently.
Click to expand...
Assassination usually refers to the murder of political figures or leaders. Terrorists want to create fear, instability and unrest, and the random selection of the people who are killed or injured makes that more likely. Look at 9/11 as an example - the terrorists had no idea who they would end up killing in those attacks, but they knew their acts would have huge ramifications.

I'm not saying a terrorist couldn't carry out an assassination, but the definitions aren't that clear, imo. Whatever it is, people die who shouldn't die.
 
Mockney said:
You're really going to use a staged photo posted by a UKIP MEP as an example of the moral high ground the Caf should aspire to?

What exactly stops this from being a similarly politicised act of misdirection from the side more obviously affected by the implications? At what point does Leavers saying "We shouldn't talk about this (because it might hurt our campaign)" somehow become less of a political power play than Remainers saying "We should talk about this (because it might benefit ours)?"

If anything it's a potentially more shameless act. Denying the woman her own politics in death, for fear of it damaging yours.
Click to expand...
Well put, especially the final paragraph.
 
Penna said:
Assassination usually refers to the murder of political figures or leaders. Terrorists want to create fear, instability and unrest, and the random selection of the people who are killed or injured makes that more likely. Look at 9/11 as an example - the terrorists had no idea who they would end up killing in those attacks, but they knew their acts would have huge ramifications.

I'm not saying a terrorist couldn't carry out an assassination, but the definitions aren't that clear, imo. Whatever it is, people die who shouldn't die.
Click to expand...

They killed that McWhirter fellow and targeted Duran Duran!
 
Mockney said:
You're really going to use a staged photo posted by a UKIP MEP as an example of the moral high ground the Caf should aspire to?

What exactly stops this from being a similarly politicised act of misdirection from the side more obviously affected by the implications? At what point does Leavers saying "We shouldn't talk about this (because it might hurt our campaign)" somehow become less of a political power play than Remainers saying "We should talk about this (because it might benefit ours)?"

If anything it's a potentially more shameless act. Denying the woman her own politics in death, for fear of it damaging yours.
Click to expand...

Just as an addition to this, it isn't even about Remain vs Leave. This sort of wildly extreme political rhetoric has been going on outside of the EU debate for a while now, and it hasn't just been coming from the usual suspects (e.g. Britain First, UKIP, EDL, etc.), but the currently elected PM.

When Corbyn was announced as Labour leader and publicly aired his views on trident, Cameron declared that Labour and Corbyn were legitimate threats to national security. During the election campaigns for Mayor of London Cameron essentially said Sadiq Khan was a member of ISIS. Then when you bring into the EU referendum you've got Cameron stating that a vote to leave will lead to WWIII and Johnson responding by claiming all Remain voters are supporting Hitler's ideals. When the man appointed to lead the country and a hopeful successor to his position are freely making statements rife with unsubstantiated claims and dangerous levels of hyperbole, is it any wonder that those with little to no political responsibility and accountability are going to even greater and more extreme lengths to make their voices heard?

A look into the circus that has been the candidate races for the US Presidential Election reveals that the highest level of global politics has become awash hatred, showmanship and corruption.
 
RedTiger said:
Tommy standing with his brethren.

41.jpg_1194827641.jpg
Click to expand...

There's a sense of irony in that Britain and it's empire throughout history have been invading and pillaging countless foreign countries.

For example, I bet these fannies are incandescent with rage whenever they see an Indian on the street.
 
Looks like it was taken in Dewsbury....just a few miles down the road from Birstall.

Another allegedly of him....Edit: I've removed it.
 
Last edited:
Grinner said:
They killed that McWhirter fellow and targeted Duran Duran!
Click to expand...
Ross McWhirter was a political activist and knowingly set himself up as a target by offering reward money for information about bombers. Duran Duran - I have no idea!

As for the pic posted by Marching - they'll soon know if it's him, with those tattoos.

edit - if you look at the pics of Mair when he was arrested, you can't see anything inked on his left arm.
 
Last edited:
Mockney said:
You're really going to use a staged photo posted by a UKIP MEP as an example of the moral high ground the Caf should aspire to?

What exactly stops this from being a similarly politicised act of misdirection from the side more obviously affected by the implications? At what point does Leavers saying "We shouldn't talk about this (because it might hurt our campaign)" somehow become less of a political power play than Remainers saying "We should talk about this (because it might benefit ours)?"

If anything it's a potentially more shameless act. Denying the woman her own politics in death, for fear of it damaging yours.
Click to expand...

I think that the Caf should attempt to reflect the style of politics which Jo Cox herself was striving for, rather than the pettiness displayed by some posters here. You and others might also appreciate the means by which i came across that picture: the twitter page of Guardian columnist and Remain campaigner, Gaby Hinsliff. I was not aware of Mr Arnott's political allegiance, however i do not in retrospect believe it to be of supreme importance. Be it staged by the respective campaign groups, or a natural expression of unity following a tragedy which transcends them both, the symbolism is very important (particularly with the wretched nature of the debate). I would echo much of what @Ubik said earlier, even his assessment that this has been the worst political exchange in my personal experience.

If i were seeking to deny her politics then why would i be actively encouraging people to donate in the name of those very causes.? Granted, it is not so difficult for me, as i support many of them already.

And let us be clear about the implications of @Alex99's post:
A timid loner acting all on his own without any outside influence on the actions and motivations that he absolutely developed alone, on his own, without anyone else, that just happen to reflect the exact views of the right-wing media and political entities.
Click to expand...

A presumed neo-Nazi, long standing advocate of white supremacy (which seems to have been lost on a few here), is said to represent the views of the right-wing as a mass and Brexit movement more generally. Not only did this go unremarked upon, subsequent posters actually endorsed the remarks. Additionally, we saw crass opportunism, with this sad event being used as some mounting block for other unrelated agendas.

Do the roots of Mr Mair's extremism lie with this present campaign or even the past year? No, not in my opinion. But can we reduce the chances of the London Nail Bomber and Thomas Mair being succeeded by someone else in 10-20 years time? Absolutely.

Why has the discourse so degenerated, why is UKIP increasingly influential? Because, in one form or another, the traditional parties have fled the field. The impact is being felt right across the spectrum, and any improvement must be found in the same.
 
Alex99 said:
A timid loner acting all on his own without any outside influence on the actions and motivations that he absolutely developed alone, on his own, without anyone else, that just happen to reflect the exact views of the right-wing media and political entities.

We've had Cameron declaring the Labour party as a threat to national security, Farage standing in front of literal, Nazi propaganda, with BREAKING POINT plastered all over the place, and countless others constantly informing the people of Britain that remaining in the EU poses unavoidable risk to themselves, their families and their very way of life. We've had the likes of the Mail, Sun and Telegraph describing people so desperate to escape the conflict that rages in their home country that they are willing to risk their lives to get out, as "invaders", and a barrage of comments about terrorists slipping through the net ready to pounce and destroy our towns and cities. We've had the far-right parties, such as Britain First, issue a rallying cry to its followers to take direct action against Muslim elected officials, including the newly elected Mayor of London, direct action in the places that they live, work and pray. But no, this man came up with this idea completely out of the blue.

We hear nothing about mental health and support for those who need it, with those suffering left to deal with it on their own and stigmatised for it. We sit and watch as the Tory government does its utmost to dismantle the NHS and any other service that benefit, first and foremost, the most vulnerable in our society, because we apparently can't afford it, despite the fact that their own leader has been outed as a tax-evading waster, all whilst our attention is turned to some mum of 6 from a council estate who has the audacity to own a 40" TV, or how an immigrant family in Leeds is somehow scrounging literally all of the welfare whilst simultaneously taking jobs off poor Britons. But it's the health service that's let this man down.
Click to expand...
Spot the feck on.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
And let us be clear about the implications of @Alex99's post:


A presumed neo-Nazi, long standing advocate of white supremacy (which seems to have been lost on a few here), is said to represent the views of the right-wing as a mass and Brexit movement more generally. Not only did this go unremarked upon, subsequent posters actually endorsed the remarks. Additionally, we saw crass opportunism, with this sad event being used as some mounting block for other unrelated agendas.

Do the roots of Mr Mair's extremism lie with this present campaign or even the past year? No, not in my opinion. But can we reduce the chances of the London Nail Bomber and Thomas Mair being succeeded by someone else in 10-20 years time? Absolutely.

Why has the discourse so degenerated, why is UKIP increasingly influential? Because, in one form or another, the traditional parties have fled the field. The impact is being felt right across the spectrum, and any improvement must be found in the same.
Click to expand...

I did not and do not believe that Mair represents "the views of the right-wing as a mass and Brexit movement," nor did I imply that to be the case.

Jo Cox's death, first and foremost, is a tragic and unnecessary loss of life, leaving a young family without its wife and mother. However, the context in which this tragic event occurred cannot be ignored, lest we allow the dangerous rhetoric surrounding it to continue to prevail throughout our political landscape.

The right-wing media (i.e The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, etc.) see no issue brandishing desperate refugees as "invaders" threatening the livelihood of the average Brit, yet regularly deflect attention away from the corrupt elite by targeting the poor and vulnerable when needed.

We live in a nation where mouthpieces such as Katie Hopkins are regularly given airtime on national television and column space in national newspapers, precisely because they're very willing to state that they'd rather gun down refugees than offer assistance, or that immigrants should wear a wristband to identify themselves as such, all in the name of entertainment.

Once upon a time, comments stating that the leader of the Labour party is a risk to national security, comments implying that the Labour candidate for Mayor of London is a member of a prominent terrorist organisation, statements warning us of impending war with the rest of Europe, and comparisons between the EU and Nazi Germany came from the far-right and those generally perceived to hold extreme political views. Nowadays our Prime Minister, and the man hoping to take over as Prime Minister once he steps down are freely delivering such comments to the media and within the House of Commons.

When the elected government is readily using such rhetoric, is it any wonder that those at the extreme end of the political spectrum use more extreme measures to make their voices heard?

Mair gave his name in court as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" today. A prevailing message of the Leave campaign has been to free Britain of the apparent shackles placed on it by the EU. A key and common element of the British far-right is freeing Britain from outside influences. There is no crass opportunism at play when you draw comparisons between this man and his actions to the right-wing media and political entities in Britain, and I find it utterly remarkable that you not only refuse to see this, but in fact see those that point it out as somehow disrespectful to Jo Cox.

Jo Cox was a politician for all of the right reasons. She wanted to help people and to make the world a better place for anyone and everyone. We cannot let the likes of the Mail and Telegraph absolve themselves of any accountability for the rhetoric they have so eagerly published and instead place the blame on 'mental health issues' and NHS psychiatrists for failing to deal with them. Likewise, we cannot let the likes of David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, with their warnings of impending war, comparisons to Hitler, and constant references to Britain reaching "Breaking Point" make out that they are any better than the likes of Paul Golding and his belief in "militant direct action".
 
Alex99 said:
I did not and do not believe that Mair represents "the views of the right-wing as a mass and Brexit movement," nor did I imply that to be the case.

Jo Cox's death, first and foremost, is a tragic and unnecessary loss of life, leaving a young family without its wife and mother. However, the context in which this tragic event occurred cannot be ignored, lest we allow the dangerous rhetoric surrounding it to continue to prevail throughout our political landscape.

The right-wing media (i.e The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, etc.) see no issue brandishing desperate refugees as "invaders" threatening the livelihood of the average Brit, yet regularly deflect attention away from the corrupt elite by targeting the poor and vulnerable when needed.

We live in a nation where mouthpieces such as Katie Hopkins are regularly given airtime on national television and column space in national newspapers, precisely because they're very willing to state that they'd rather gun down refugees than offer assistance, or that immigrants should wear a wristband to identify themselves as such, all in the name of entertainment.

Once upon a time, comments stating that the leader of the Labour party is a risk to national security, comments implying that the Labour candidate for Mayor of London is a member of a prominent terrorist organisation, statements warning us of impending war with the rest of Europe, and comparisons between the EU and Nazi Germany came from the far-right and those generally perceived to hold extreme political views. Nowadays our Prime Minister, and the man hoping to take over as Prime Minister once he steps down are freely delivering such comments to the media and within the House of Commons.

When the elected government is readily using such rhetoric, is it any wonder that those at the extreme end of the political spectrum use more extreme measures to make their voices heard?

Mair gave his name in court as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" today. A prevailing message of the Leave campaign has been to free Britain of the apparent shackles placed on it by the EU. A key and common element of the British far-right is freeing Britain from outside influences. There is no crass opportunism at play when you draw comparisons between this man and his actions to the right-wing media and political entities in Britain, and I find it utterly remarkable that you not only refuse to see this, but in fact see those that point it out as somehow disrespectful to Jo Cox.

Jo Cox was a politician for all of the right reasons. She wanted to help people and to make the world a better place for anyone and everyone. We cannot let the likes of the Mail and Telegraph absolve themselves of any accountability for the rhetoric they have so eagerly published and instead place the blame on 'mental health issues' and NHS psychiatrists for failing to deal with them. Likewise, we cannot let the likes of David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, with their warnings of impending war, comparisons to Hitler, and constant references to Britain reaching "Breaking Point" make out that they are any better than the likes of Paul Golding and his belief in "militant direct action".
Click to expand...
Stop talking sense Alex.
 
Alex99 said:
I did not and do not believe that Mair represents "the views of the right-wing as a mass and Brexit movement," nor did I imply that to be the case.

Jo Cox's death, first and foremost, is a tragic and unnecessary loss of life, leaving a young family without its wife and mother. However, the context in which this tragic event occurred cannot be ignored, lest we allow the dangerous rhetoric surrounding it to continue to prevail throughout our political landscape.

The right-wing media (i.e The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, etc.) see no issue brandishing desperate refugees as "invaders" threatening the livelihood of the average Brit, yet regularly deflect attention away from the corrupt elite by targeting the poor and vulnerable when needed.

We live in a nation where mouthpieces such as Katie Hopkins are regularly given airtime on national television and column space in national newspapers, precisely because they're very willing to state that they'd rather gun down refugees than offer assistance, or that immigrants should wear a wristband to identify themselves as such, all in the name of entertainment.

Once upon a time, comments stating that the leader of the Labour party is a risk to national security, comments implying that the Labour candidate for Mayor of London is a member of a prominent terrorist organisation, statements warning us of impending war with the rest of Europe, and comparisons between the EU and Nazi Germany came from the far-right and those generally perceived to hold extreme political views. Nowadays our Prime Minister, and the man hoping to take over as Prime Minister once he steps down are freely delivering such comments to the media and within the House of Commons.

When the elected government is readily using such rhetoric, is it any wonder that those at the extreme end of the political spectrum use more extreme measures to make their voices heard?

Mair gave his name in court as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" today. A prevailing message of the Leave campaign has been to free Britain of the apparent shackles placed on it by the EU. A key and common element of the British far-right is freeing Britain from outside influences. There is no crass opportunism at play when you draw comparisons between this man and his actions to the right-wing media and political entities in Britain, and I find it utterly remarkable that you not only refuse to see this, but in fact see those that point it out as somehow disrespectful to Jo Cox.

Jo Cox was a politician for all of the right reasons. She wanted to help people and to make the world a better place for anyone and everyone. We cannot let the likes of the Mail and Telegraph absolve themselves of any accountability for the rhetoric they have so eagerly published and instead place the blame on 'mental health issues' and NHS psychiatrists for failing to deal with them. Likewise, we cannot let the likes of David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, with their warnings of impending war, comparisons to Hitler, and constant references to Britain reaching "Breaking Point" make out that they are any better than the likes of Paul Golding and his belief in "militant direct action".
Click to expand...
Utter, utter nonsense. This man very clearly has extreme mental health issues. That's it, his actions were rooted there. Nowhere else.
 
Rednotdead said:
Utter, utter nonsense. This man very clearly has extreme mental health issues. That's it, his actions were rooted there. Nowhere else.
Click to expand...

This was a vulnerable person who was pushed to commiting a terrorist act based upon the battlefield rhetoric being pushed by the right wing media. He believed outsiders were the enemy and that "our services are flooded" etc… you cannot absolve these messages that have very publicly been passed to someone who committed a terrorist attack from any blame.

This is a terrorist act, no question.
 
Rednotdead said:
Utter, utter nonsense. This man very clearly has extreme mental health issues. That's it, his actions were rooted there. Nowhere else.
Click to expand...
He was a normally-functioning adult, whose behaviour aroused no suspicion amongst family or neighbours in a community he'd lived in for 40 years - except to say he was "quiet" and "a loner". He did jobs for old people, he visited his mum and did her shopping, he did some voluntary work. People mention that he was/had been depressed. No-one who knew him has suggested he was severely mentally-ill.

It's therefore hard to conclude that mental health problems were the sole cause of his actions. Obviously, we don't know at this stage, but that's just my first impression.
 
phelans shorts said:
This was a vulnerable person who was pushed to commiting a terrorist act based upon the battlefield rhetoric being pushed by the right wing media. He believed outsiders were the enemy and that "our services are flooded" etc… you cannot absolve these messages that have very publicly been passed to someone who committed a terrorist attack from any blame.

This is a terrorist act, no question.
Click to expand...
No it's not. It's the act of someone seriously mentally unstable. don't try to make political capital out of it.
 
Penna said:
He was a normally-functioning adult, whose behaviour aroused no suspicion amongst family or neighbours in a community he'd lived in for 40 years - except to say he was "quiet" and "a loner". He did jobs for old people, he visited his mum and did her shopping, he did some voluntary work. People mention that he was/had been depressed. No-one who knew him has suggested he was severely mentally-ill.

It's therefore hard to conclude that mental health problems were the sole cause of his actions. Obviously, we don't know at this stage, but that's just my first impression.
Click to expand...
In that case it's similarly hard to say his actions were brought about by right wing propaganda, which is being claimed by people seeking to use the tragedy for political purposes.
 
Rednotdead said:
No it's not. It's the act of someone seriously mentally unstable. don't try to make political capital out of it.
Click to expand...
It's a murder motivated by an ideology. It's terrorism plain and simple.

The only reason it's not being called that in every media outlet is because he's white and some of those media outlets share his ideology and are rather uncomfortable over it.
 
Definitely, people decrying not to make political capital of the situation are either hypocritical or unwilling to admit the horrible rhetoric of the right wing media.
 
Rednotdead said:
Utter, utter nonsense. This man very clearly has extreme mental health issues. That's it, his actions were rooted there. Nowhere else.
Click to expand...

Can you point us in the direction of some proof of that?

His political beliefs came from his own mouth....both at the time of his attack on a MP whose own political beliefs were the complete opposite of his own and in court.

The definition of terrorism....

The unlawful use of violence and intimidation especially against civiliansin the pursuit of political aims.

....sounds like he was a terrorist to me.
 
Arguing that a lonner without connections to the IS is a terrorist just by saying "i ve seen them on TV and they impress me", but a guy who has clear connections to british nationalists and spend time with them and their shit is no terrorist with only "mental problems" is so weird. Only the right-wing would argue like that.

It was nationalistic terrorism. This is for sure.

But the right wing will go on and speak about poor refugees as terrorists, its always the same.
 
Rednotdead said:
Utter, utter nonsense. This man very clearly has extreme mental health issues. That's it, his actions were rooted there. Nowhere else.
Click to expand...

Can you provide the evidence for these apparent "extreme mental health issues" suffered by Mair? There's certainly enough evidence that he has been radicalised by the far-right, yet the only things I've seen regarding his mental health were that he was a bit quiet but otherwise a normal chap, living without concern in the same community for 40 years, with his mum remarking that he had suffered from depression a number of years ago, but had received help and had since been better.

By all accounts, it's come as complete surprise to those who knew him, yet it seems he's kept his political beliefs secret until now.
 
Rednotdead said:
Utter, utter nonsense. This man very clearly has extreme mental health issues. That's it, his actions were rooted there. Nowhere else.
Click to expand...
What were your thoughts on the Lee Rigby killing?
 
Damien said:
What were your thoughts on the Lee Rigby killing?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's kind of the end of the discussion there for me. I don't get the mental gymnastics after yesterday's performance by him in court.

There's more than enough evidence that this was a case of highly-targetted, politically-motivated terror.

Edit: also, fair play @Alex99 et al.
 
Rednotdead said:
Utter, utter nonsense. This man very clearly has extreme mental health issues. That's it, his actions were rooted there. Nowhere else.
Click to expand...
Consider Jo Cox's political actions on behalf of the citizens of nations other than Britain; consider her actions regarding ethnic diversity in her constituency and elsewhere; consider Thomas Mair's known political views; none of these things add up to mental illness being Mair's driving force for the murder. This incident was not like, say, the attack on MP Nigel Jones in 2000, in which it was obvious that mental issues were the prime mover.
 
Alex99 said:
I did not and do not believe that Mair represents "the views of the right-wing as a mass and Brexit movement," nor did I imply that to be the case.

Jo Cox's death, first and foremost, is a tragic and unnecessary loss of life, leaving a young family without its wife and mother. However, the context in which this tragic event occurred cannot be ignored, lest we allow the dangerous rhetoric surrounding it to continue to prevail throughout our political landscape.

The right-wing media (i.e The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, etc.) see no issue brandishing desperate refugees as "invaders" threatening the livelihood of the average Brit, yet regularly deflect attention away from the corrupt elite by targeting the poor and vulnerable when needed.

We live in a nation where mouthpieces such as Katie Hopkins are regularly given airtime on national television and column space in national newspapers, precisely because they're very willing to state that they'd rather gun down refugees than offer assistance, or that immigrants should wear a wristband to identify themselves as such, all in the name of entertainment.

Once upon a time, comments stating that the leader of the Labour party is a risk to national security, comments implying that the Labour candidate for Mayor of London is a member of a prominent terrorist organisation, statements warning us of impending war with the rest of Europe, and comparisons between the EU and Nazi Germany came from the far-right and those generally perceived to hold extreme political views. Nowadays our Prime Minister, and the man hoping to take over as Prime Minister once he steps down are freely delivering such comments to the media and within the House of Commons.

When the elected government is readily using such rhetoric, is it any wonder that those at the extreme end of the political spectrum use more extreme measures to make their voices heard?

Mair gave his name in court as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" today. A prevailing message of the Leave campaign has been to free Britain of the apparent shackles placed on it by the EU. A key and common element of the British far-right is freeing Britain from outside influences. There is no crass opportunism at play when you draw comparisons between this man and his actions to the right-wing media and political entities in Britain, and I find it utterly remarkable that you not only refuse to see this, but in fact see those that point it out as somehow disrespectful to Jo Cox.

Jo Cox was a politician for all of the right reasons. She wanted to help people and to make the world a better place for anyone and everyone. We cannot let the likes of the Mail and Telegraph absolve themselves of any accountability for the rhetoric they have so eagerly published and instead place the blame on 'mental health issues' and NHS psychiatrists for failing to deal with them. Likewise, we cannot let the likes of David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, with their warnings of impending war, comparisons to Hitler, and constant references to Britain reaching "Breaking Point" make out that they are any better than the likes of Paul Golding and his belief in "militant direct action".
Click to expand...
Alex, you're encapsulating my POV perfectly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.