London van attack: One dead as police investigate incident as terrorism


Recommended Posts

Astra.Xtreme
1 minute ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

Ah you you DO agree with him then.  That's great.

 

And "because: context" without providing the context you feel exonerates you is also a huge cop-out.

Ah yes, another deflection.  Funny how you claim it's a cop-out when it wasn't even a response to anything specific.  Perhaps you should revisit what a cop-out actually is.  Again with the context...

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
Just now, Astra.Xtreme said:

English isn't hard

Ah, "because: context", right?  I have read what you typed and you know what appears to be missing from much of it?

 

ProTip on English from an Englishman: context; without it, I could argue that you leave yourself open to an ambiguous interpretation!  Maybe you should force-feed people your truths?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rippleman
3 minutes ago, wakjak said:

Would he say most criminals are terrorists?

What does this have to do with anything? If you wish to interchange the words, so be it. let me rewqord for you AGAIN. It will be the last time I attempt. I know you are dodging so you don't have to agree with me but it is obvious.
 

Would wakjak say (in his opinion) that the vast majority of criminals and terrorists are eventually released from prison/institution?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
Just now, Astra.Xtreme said:

Ah yes, another deflection.  Funny how you claim it's a cop-out when it wasn't even a response to anything specific.  Perhaps you should revisit what a cop-out actually is.  Again with the context...

No deflection at all, I am responding directly to you, as you are to me.  Your response to me, not being a response to anything, right?  Wow, you seem to be hugely confused by what you are even attempting to say.  Provide context to your posts, rather than allowing others to provide their own force-fed media-driven contexts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme
2 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

Ah, "because: context", right?  I have read what you typed and you know what appears to be missing from much of it?

 

ProTip on English from an Englishman: context; without it, I could argue that you leave yourself open to an ambiguous interpretation!  Maybe you should force-feed people your truths?

Wow you really love those deflection tactics, don't you?  Funny how you're now attacking me when you won't even attempt to justify your own claims...  That's a new low...

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
2 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Wow you really love those deflection tactics, don't you?  Funny have your now attacking me when you won't even attempt to justify your own claims...  That's a new low...

You find it funny?  I'm really glad.  You have taken a response and applied your own context to create humour.  Well done you!

 

So far, you have used "media force-fed opinions", "Because: context" and now "ah but: deflection" as your responses, and claim I am the one without a justification.  I know full well what a cop-out is, and your posts give clear context in how to use one.

 

And attacking you?  You interpret this as an attack?  Oh you poor snowflake!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak
Just now, Rippleman said:

What does this have to do with anything?

um... the topic at hand? Are you awake? Still sleeping? 

 

1 minute ago, Rippleman said:

If you wish to interchange the words

Quote

The man was initially arrested on suspicion of attempted murder but Scotland Yard said he was later arrested for the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism including murder and attempted murder.

I'm not interchanging anything.

 

4 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

Would wakjak say (in his opinion) that the vast majority of criminals and terrorists are eventually released from prison/institution?

Again, I will tell you, for the last time, since I know you're not dodging, but are either being obtuse or just can't understand.

 

Would he say that the vast majority of criminals ARE terrorists?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme
2 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

No deflection at all, I am responding directly to you, as you are to me.  Your response to me, not being a response to anything, right?  Wow, you seem to be hugely confused by what you are even attempting to say.  Provide context to your posts, rather than allowing others to provide their own force-fed media-driven contexts.

Since you're clearly too lazy to do it yourself, here's a copy-paste of my first comment you're so enthralled with... "It's best to ignore the people that have a closed mind, and especially the ones that get over excited about everything the media force feeds them."  I even did you the favor of pasting the entire sentence instead of cherry-picking it.  You're welcome...  Now take a few minutes, read it through a few times, and let it sink in.  Please explain for us where I make mention of conflicting views.  Surely it has to be in there somewhere....  You may need to go back a page and check some of the comments before and after what I said.  Probably even your initial few comments.  I hope I'm not asking too much...

Link to post
Share on other sites
StrikedOut

Not sure what is more appropriate, 

 

This:

 

trainn.jpg

 

Or this:

 

 

64480511.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
6 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

my first comment you're so enthralled with

You over-estimate the value that I assign to your posts.

 

6 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Please explain for us where I make mention of conflicting views

For us?  You refer to yourself as multiple people?  That does explain quite a lot - as I figured I was only responding to the one personality.

 

Thank you for quoting, it's actually rather helpful.  The quote you make does indeed not mention conflicting views.  You are however quoting a post that was a response to WakJak's comments and in support of someone who disagreed with him.  You know what this is called, when you post something within the framework of an existing topic?  Go on, guess... That's right.  It's called "context".  My response is called "inference", and it seems I was spot on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
shockz
18 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

2 things here...first,  NO my statement is not presuming anything. second, yes, I do presume separately that he will get out. Let me ask you a question: Statistically, are most criminals released in time?

Most criminals who mow down a person in a car with malicious intent usually don't walk free. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rippleman
8 minutes ago, wakjak said:

Would he say that the vast majority of criminals ARE terrorists?

This is an obvious no, why bother down this route when the question doesn't even require to be answered? (example: can newborns walk?!?!?!)

I am done, you are one weird petty dude.

2 minutes ago, shockz said:

Most criminals who mow down a person in a car with malicious intent usually don't walk free. 

Unfortunately eventually, yes after they serve whatever punishment the state gives them. That is the way the default system works. I don't know why you and the other guy are hung up on this thread derailment but I am done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
shockz
6 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

Unfortunately eventually, yes after they serve whatever punishment the state gives them. That is the way the default system works. I don't know why you and the other guy are hung up on this thread derailment but I am done. 

No, that's not at all how this works. And I've literally replied once to your post, I'm not the one derailing here. Thanks for being done, not sure why you'd expect to not be called out on utter nonsense. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme
9 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

You over-estimate the value that I assign to your posts.

 

Thank you for quoting, it's actually rather helpful.  The quote you make does indeed not mention conflicting views.  You are however quoting a post that was a response to WakJak's comments and in support of someone who disagreed with him.  You know what this is called, when you post something within the framework of an existing topic?  Go on, guess... That's right.  It's called "context".  My response is called "inference", and it seems I was spot on.

Nice work on contradicting yourself in the same comment...  You were pretty close to understanding what I said, and then you chose to go on an interesting tangent.  Not sure why the word "context" has been such a distraction for you.  Sorry, I clearly asked too much of you.  I'll keep it more basic for you next time.

 

So this has been thoroughly entertaining.  :rolleyes:  Didn't expect that semantics of words would be such an interesting science project for some people...

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
6 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Nice work on contradicting yourself in the same comment...  You were pretty close to understanding what I said, and then you chose to go on an interesting tangent.  Not sure why the word "context" has been such a distraction for you.  Sorry, I clearly asked too much of you.  I'll keep it more basic for you next time.

 

So this has been thoroughly entertaining.  :rolleyes:

No contradiction at all, in fact quite the opposite as I pointed out the absolute flaw in your argument.  But hey, you seem to lack the skills to grasp the meaning of the words you use.  Keep on keeping on, keep on using the same tired responses of:

 

Deflection

Context

Force-fed media

 

Now you will use a tired attempt to undermine my post with an accusation that I have contradicted myself (without either context or a reference).  Well tried, but ultimately failed.

 

I'm sure they are really strong arguments from your perspective, and while the rest of the world finds them facile attempts to argue - you seem happy enough.  Ignorance is bliss :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
8 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Didn't expect that semantics of words would be such an interesting science project for some people...

Didn't expect that anyone would struggle so much with the English language that they would elevate such pointless twaddle to the level of "science project".  Takes all sorts...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme
2 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

Didn't expect that anyone would struggle so much with the English language that they would elevate such pointless twaddle to the level of "science project".  Takes all sorts...

Between all the deflections and your refusal to acknowledge portions of my comments, I'm the one that struggles with the English language?  That's pretty rich coming from you...

9 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

No contradiction at all, in fact quite the opposite as I pointed out the absolute flaw in your argument.  But hey, you seem to lack the skills to grasp the meaning of the words you use.  Keep on keeping on, keep on using the same tired responses of:

 

Deflection

Context

Force-fed media

 

I'm sure they are really strong arguments from your perspective, and while the rest of the world finds them facile attempts to argue - you seem happy enough.  Ignorance is bliss :)

Ignorance is bliss, huh?  Oh the irony... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rippleman
17 minutes ago, shockz said:

No, that's not at all how this works. And I've literally replied once to your post, I'm not the one derailing here. Thanks for being done, not sure why you'd expect to not be called out on utter nonsense. 

Curiosity has spiked my interest. I must ask, how does it work from where you are from? Here in Canada, if someone does a crime, they go before a court where they are found innocent or guilty. If found guilty, they are  sentenced for a certain amount of time (varies dependent on circumstances) as punishment and/or rehabilitation and then released after that time expires. Where you are from, it doesn't work that way? If don't differently, then I can see why you thought it could be "utter nonsense" as you posted, but if it works that way where you are from, then you are actually agreeing with me and don't even realize it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
3 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Between all the deflections and your refusal to acknowledge portions of my comments, I'm the one that struggles with the English language?  That's pretty rich coming from you...

Ignorance is bliss, huh?  Oh the irony... 

A whole bunch of drivel with the accusations of deflections and yet no real content.  Presented within the context of someone who is astounded that their use of the English language would be their downfall, this is highly amusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
shockz
9 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

Curiosity has spiked my interest. I must ask, how does it work from where you are from? Here in Canada, if someone does a crime, they go before a court where they are found innocent or guilty. If found guilty sentenced for a certain amount of time as punishment and/or rehabilitation and then released after that time expires. From where you are from, it doesn't work that way?

I'll bite, even though you're being intentionally obtuse.

 

Usually when you kill an innocent person, with intent to kill, and not an accident, the following happens when you are found guilty:

 

1) You are sentenced to life in prison, with the remote possibility of parole, however by the time that happens, the person has either died of old age/prison life, or the parole is denied. For extremely violent rampages, parole is usually not a possibility.

2) You are sentenced to death, and either die on death row or your death sentence is commuted to life in prison as laws and culture change.

3) You miraculously win an insane plea and serve out the rest of your life in an mental facility with no chance of freedom.

 

There are of course one off situations, by majority-wise, the 3 above are the most likely scenarios for a murderer. 

 

This isn't hitting someone when driving under the influence, or shooting someone in self defense, this is a pretty clear cut example of premeditation.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme
11 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

A whole more bunch of drivel with the accusations of deflections and yet no real content.  Presented within the context of someone who is astounded that their use of the English language would be their downfall, this is highly amusing.

I knew you couldn't go two comments without using the word "context".  Buzzword of the day for you, it seems.

And closely followed by your stabs at my apparent lack of English comprehension for some reason...  Interesting...

 

I'm starting to see a parrot-like resemblance to your comments.  You find the shiny glow of some word in my comment and then reshape it into your responses multiple times.  Cherry-picked stab after stab...  Rather interesting.  I'm going to wager that "parrot" is going to set something off for your next gems.  Any takers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
3 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

I knew you couldn't go two comments without using the word "context".  Buzzword of the day for you, it seems.

You attempted to use it as a justification when called out on talking nonsense, and it blew up in your face.  I find it hugely amusing.

 

4 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Any takers?

"Oh no, I'm losing an argument and running out of deflections - somebody help me"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme
5 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

You attempted to use it as a justification when called out on talking nonsense, and it blew up in your face.  I find it hugely amusing.

 

"Oh no, I'm losing an argument and running out of deflections - somebody help me"

Seeing as you were the one constantly deflecting my comments, you are clearly still very lost or haven't the slightest clue what a deflection is.  The really "amusing" part of this all, is that the progression of what everybody said is still in plain sight on page 2 and 3 of this thread.  Looks like a flat out case of denial...  Cause-effect...  Following the chronological order of things, I expect another deflection from you in 3....2....1

 

And since you're concerned about who's winning and who's losing, the quickest way to do so is to divert onto an unrelated tangent and start throwing jabs at semantics (in your case it was misunderstanding my comment and then cherry-picking it to try to fabricate a case).  You chose that route rather quickly...  And no need for you to deny it.  The proof all lies on page 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rippleman
1 minute ago, shockz said:

Usually when you kill an innocent person, with intent to kill, and not an accident, the following happens when you are found guilty:

 

1) You are sentenced to life in prison, with the remote possibility of parole, however by the time that happens, the person has either died of old age/prison life, or the parole is denied. For extremely violent rampages, parole is usually not a possibility.

2) You are sentenced to death, and either die on death row or your death sentence is commuted to life in prison as laws and culture change.

3) You miraculously win an insane plea and serve out the rest of your life in an mental facility with no chance of freedom.

 

There are of course one off situations, by majority-wise, the 3 above are the most likely scenarios for a murderer. 

 

This isn't hitting someone when driving under the influence, or shooting someone in self defense, this is a pretty clear cut example of premeditation.

Shows only 59 people at the moment have a true "full life" sentence in England but it appears. in Canada, our laws are wayyyyy to lenient. Max sentencing is LIFE (with life being defined as 25 years with no possibility for parole). So if someone commits murder at age 20, even under the worst possible scenario, they  are out as early as 45. Never happens that way here though, even the most heinous of crimes killers walk very quickly... typically under 10 years.

 

My original position still stands, I hope they give this guy England's version of a true "life sentence" but I suspect it won't simply to due to probability. We will see I guess.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Dick Montage
8 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Seeing as you were the one constantly deflecting my comments, you are clearly still very lost or haven't the slightest clue what a deflection is.  The really "amusing" part of this all, is that the progression of what everybody said is still in plain sight on page 2 and 3 of this thread.  Looks like a flat out case of denial...  Cause-effect...  Following the chronological order of things, I expect another deflection from you in 3....2....1

OK, let me put it in little words that you can understand:  You have deflected every single argument made, I've explicitly pointed this out and you chose to ignore that, re-quote old comments in attempt to present them in a different light that you have fallen back on after the event, and it's all just gone horrendously wrong for you.

 

Obviously you will call this yet another deflection.  What more do you want?  You're like a child that isn't satisfied with the truth so keeps re-asking the same question in hope of a different result.  There isn't one.  Your original intent was obvious from the outset, you were called out on it, and since then you've failed to put any argument forward beyond tired responses dressed up as if they held any value  used by those who either can't recognise or deliberately don't care how foolish it makes them look.

 

Your trite "3... 2... 1..." attempts to line me up for what you may interpret as another "deflection", however the joke is on you - anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that you don't even comprehend the responses and are sat akin to a toddler with his hands over his ears screaming "can't hear you, don't care".  It's as pathetic now as it was over a page ago - well done, that is your legacy here, that is what you have contributed.  I would mockingly say "I hope you're proud" but the saddest part is that you probably are, and don't even understand why that is so laughable.

6 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

I hope they give this guy England's version of a true "life sentence"

England's version of a life sentence legally includes "eligible for parole after a fixed period set by the judge".  Unfortunately.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By zikalify
      Uber will give Brits a free trip to vaccination centres
      by Paul Hill





      To assist the drive to get Britain vaccinated against the coronavirus, Uber has announced that it’s going to offer free trips to vaccination centres around the country as long as the bill is less than £15. Unfortunately, those who fall outside the vaccination priority groups probably won’t benefit from the offer because the promo codes are only valid until February 28, 2021, but if you’re taking an elderly relative then you can definitely save some money.

      To get the free ride, tap the menu in the top left of the Uber app and select Wallet, select ‘Add Promo Code’ at the bottom and add the appropriate promo code for the vaccination centre you’re travelling to or from, then select the other pick-up or drop-off location and confirm your trip. The promo codes for the vaccination centres are as follows:

      Robertson House, Stevenage: UberUKRH Excel Centre (Nightingale), London: UberUKEX Centre for Life, Newcastle: UberUKCL Etihad Tennis and Football Centre, Manchester: UberUKET Epsom Downs Racecourse, Surrey: UberUKED Ashton Gate Stadium, Bristol: UberUKAG Millennium Point, Birmingham: UberUKMP In addition to the deadline in February, Uber has also said that the promotion will only be valid for the first 4,000 riders per promo code. It’s not clear how quickly these promo codes will last, though, according to government data nearly four million people have received their first dose of the vaccine so far. While many of those will have gone to local centres not involved in the scheme there’s still a good chance the promo codes could be exhausted before February 28 rolls around.

      Like other parts of the private sector, Uber has been altering its normal services to help people through the coronavirus pandemic. In November, the firm announced Uber Medics, a subsidised ride service for NHS and care home staff. By selecting Uber Medics, health workers could save 25% on all of their trips and get more flexibility on waiting times – all at Uber’s, not the driver’s, expense.

    • By zikalify
      Virgin Media gigabit comes to London and Northern Ireland
      by Paul Hill



      Virgin Media has announced that it has rolled out its gigabit broadband to almost 3 million homes in London and Northern Ireland. With the addition of this rollout, Virgin Media’s gigabit broadband is available in a total of 6.8 million homes across the UK.

      For those who can purchase Gig1 broadband from Virgin Media, download speeds should reach 1,104Mbps, which is around 17 times faster than the national average. Gigabit is now available on 45% of the Virgin Media network and by 2021 it plans to cover the entire network. This will help deliver the government’s longer-term broadband ambitions which will see the country ready for new technologies.

      To accompany today’s announcement, Virgin Media commissioned a Gigabit Opportunity report which found that more than £11 billion per year would be unlocked. Commenting on today’s deployment, Lutz Schüler CEO at Virgin Media, said:

      Echoing Virgin Media’s CEO, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said that the rollout of gigabit broadband is vital for the city’s future and will help to create jobs and encourage growth. He also said that it will act as a boost for businesses struggling with the coronavirus.

      Aside from London and Northern Ireland, people in Leeds, Glasgow, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Coventry, Southampton, Manchester, and Reading can sign up to Gig1. To find out more check out Virgin Media’s website.

    • By zikalify
      Transport for London set to strip Ola Cabs of its operating license on Monday
      by Paul Hill



      Sky News says it has seen a copy of a statement due to be issued by Transport for London (TfL) on Monday which states its decision to strip the ride-hailing firm Ola of its operating license. According to TfL, Ola had flaws in its operating model which led to unlicensed drivers and vehicles performing more than 1,000 passenger trips which may have put people’s safety at risk.

      Ola came to London in February this year and, learning from Uber, launched with an AI and machine learning tool called Guardian that detects irregular vehicle activity, a safety tool that matches drivers and passengers, and an option for passengers to access 24/7 voice support. At the time of its launch, 25,000 drivers had registered; with TfL’s latest decisions, drivers have an uncertain future.

      According to Sky News, the firm will have 21 days to appeal against the decision. Helen Chapman, TfL’s director of licensing, regulation and charging said that if the firm does appeal it will be allowed to continue operating until a decision is made.

      TfL’s decision to go after Ola comes just a week after Uber was given its operating license back by a judge at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court after finding the firm to be ‘fit and proper’. While London is well connected with buses, the underground, trains, bicycles, and black cabs, ride-hailing firms offer a convenient way to get around in the most remote areas where public transport is less readily available.

      Source: Sky News

    • By zikalify
      Uber granted London operation license in court appeal
      by Paul Hill



      Two weeks ago, we reported that Uber would find out on September 28 whether or not it would be given an operating license to continue offering its service in London. According to BBC News, a judge at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court has decided that Uber is now ‘fit and proper’ despite its "failings" in the past and has awarded it the operating license.

      Uber first lost its operating license in 2017 when Transport for London (TfL) declined to issue a new license over safety concerns. A judge issued the license on probation and Uber implemented more safety checks to try and address TfL’s concerns. Last year, TfL again refused to give the ride-hailing firm a new license because it said that the improvements had not gone far enough.

      With the license having been granted to Uber, drivers that use the platform can stop worrying about their livelihood going forward. BBC News estimates the number of drivers in the capital city to be around 45,000.

      While London does have excellent public transport links including trains, the underground, buses, bicycles, and black cabs, Uber vehicles offer commuters a convenient way to get around late at night or to areas that are a little far from bus stops or train stations. With politicians trying to clamp down on private vehicles in London, having Uber operating in the area could make it easier for people to forego cars.

      Source: BBC News

    • By zikalify
      Uber: London operating license decision due on September 28
      by Paul Hill



      Uber will find on September 28 whether or not it has been given an operating license in London. The operating license issue between the ride-hailing firm and Transport for London (TfL) has been going on for several years now. In November last year, TfL refused to give the firm a new operating license because it believed the firm was neither fit nor proper.

      The battle between the two started back in 2017 when TfL denied Uber a license before a judge restored it on probation. TfL’s main issue with Uber is that it doesn’t believe the service is safe. In response, Uber implemented more safety checks but TfL was still able to find issues.

      Drivers that make their living with Uber do not have to worry about the upcoming decision too much; if the judge gives the license back to the firm then life for drivers will go on as normal. If the judge refuses to issue a new license then drivers can continue doing their job while Uber appeals the decision which could drag things on for months or even years.

      Ultimately, if Uber is forced out of London it shouldn’t hurt commuters too much because the capital is very well connected with trains, the underground, buses, bicycles, and black cabs.

      Source: Reuters