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


 Share

Recommended Posts

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

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 comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By zikalify
      Ethereum completes London upgrade stabilising transaction fees
      by Paul Hill



      The team behind the Ethereum cryptocurrency has announced the completion of the London upgrade on the network which should stabilise transaction fees. According to Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) 1559, the new transaction pricing mechanism includes a fixed network fee per block which is ‘burned’ and expands or shrinks block sizes to deal with temporary network congestion.

      According to an earlier blog post, the new change won’t affect most holders of Ethereum. If your exchange, web wallet service, or mobile wallet service requires you to do anything with your Ethereum wallet, it will be up to them to let you know if any action is needed on your part, but it’s unlikely you’ll have to do anything. If you run an Ethereum node, however, you will need to upgrade it by downloading the latest Ethereum client. There are several Ethereum clients, you can find the download links in the table on the blog post.

      Since May this year, the average Ethereum transaction fee has been quite stable but in the first few months, it reached very high levels that would take a decent chunk of any Ethereum people may have had, hopefully, the new changes will work and keep fees low for those who want to buy other cryptocurrencies or cash out back to fiat.

      With bitcoin costing so much per unit nowadays, many looking to get involved in the crypto market have looked to invest in Ethereum instead as it has a much lower price point of $2,800 compared to bitcoin’s $38,400. Ethereum has also been performing better than bitcoin by some measures.

    • By zikalify
      EE boosts 4G coverage at London stations as restrictions are lifted
      by Paul Hill



      EE has announced the expansion of its 4G mobile network across rail routes in and out of London as COVID-19 restrictions begin to be lifted. While it's not the newer 5G, the expansion of 4G should ensure people don’t drop offline completely or to slower 3G and 2G speeds.

      The expansion sees nearly 70 4G mobile sites being set up around the capital city with hundreds more being planned. At London Euston and London Liverpool Street, more capacity has been added to the network so connectivity should be quicker and more reliable. Upgrades have also been applied on the route between London Liverpool Street and Chelmsford and on six sections between London Victoria and Brighton.

      Commenting on the expansion, David Salam, Director of Mobile Networks at EE, said:

      EE has also introduced 4G coverage to the HS1 line between St Pancras International and Ashford International as summer approaches and more people are expected to travel. Another important travel route that has been upgraded is the line between the Heathrow Stansted and Gatwick airports. The firm said that station upgrades were largely delivered using in-building Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) technology.

    • By zikalify
      After a 5-year battle, Uber recognises drivers as employees
      by Paul Hill



      Uber has finally recognised its 70,000 drivers in the UK as employees rather than self-employed, according to The Mirror. It’s the culmination of a five-year battle between the firm and its workers. The decision comes a little under a month since the UK’s Supreme Court came down on the side of drivers.

      Under their new terms, Uber employees will gain the minimum wage which stands at a rate of £8.72 ($12.13) per hour for those over the age of 25. As employees, they will also be entitled to a range of rights including sick pay, parental leave, and a pension.

      In an article in the Evening Standard, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said:

      While Uber attempts to paint itself in the best light after the Supreme Court’s decision, it’s very unlikely to be happy with the decision to pay its drivers on employer-employee terms. Just last November, the firm was one of several gig economy businesses that spent hundreds of millions to get Californian voters to keep the status quo over the gig economy. Ultimately, the campaign succeeded and drivers there still work on a self-employed basis.

      While it’s definitely an improvement in working conditions, drivers will not be considered full-time employees, according to The Verge. Instead, they’ll be paid at the minimum wage rate and build up their holiday time as they drive passengers to their destination.

    • By zikalify
      Sky Mobile reveals how much data was saved due to lockdown
      by Paul Hill



      The Mobile Virtual Network Operator, Sky Mobile, has revealed that £174 million worth of data has been saved among its customers due to lifestyle changes brought around by lockdowns in response to the coronavirus pandemic. It’s unsurprising that mobile data has dropped significantly due to people staying home and using their broadband connection more but it’s nice that Sky Mobile has been able to quantify the use reduction.

      Customers that have continued to pay for their mobile usage over the last year have not lost access to the 55 million GBs of data that have been saved, instead, it’s stored in Piggybank for up to three years so many customers will have a lot of data to burn through once restrictions are lifted. Sky Mobile said that on average, customers have saved 43 GB of data which works out to about £136 of savings per person.

      Commenting on the news, Paul Sweeney, Managing Director of Sky Mobile, said:

      According to the firm, customers in Scotland saved the most data reaching 7.7 million GBs and saving £24 million. London came second with customers saving 4 million GBs of data which was worth £13 million.

      While not one of the main providers in the UK, the service does have 2 million customers and it offers some interesting features including Piggybank and the recently announced ability to share spare data with those who may need it.

    • By zikalify
      UK's Supreme Court says Uber drivers are employees
      by Paul Hill



      The UK's Supreme Court has ruled that a group of Uber drivers, 25 in all, who took Uber to an employment tribunal, are to be considered employees of the firm rather than self-employed. For the time being, the employed status only applies to this group who brought the case but it could have a wider impact on the gig economy where people essentially perform piece work without other benefits that employees enjoy such as sick pay.

      The case, which was finally settled today by the UK’s Supreme Court, has been going on for around five years now. It was initially played out at a London employment tribunal which found that the drivers were entitled to paid holidays and rest breaks but Uber appealed the decision so the case progressively went through higher and higher courts.

      Britain’s 60,000 Uber drivers will not see any change to their employment status for quite a while yet, among the 25 who brought the case, details about their employment will need to be worked out over the next several months, it could even be the case that another employment tribunal hearing is needed to work out how much money is owed to the drivers.

      Commenting on the results, judge George Leggatt said:

      Uber has faced calls to make drivers employees in other countries too; Californians recently voted to keep gig economy drivers as contractors rather than employees after Uber and Lyft poured more than $200 million into a campaign to keep the existing regime.

      Source: UK Supreme Court via Reuters