Police: London stabbings that killed US woman not terrorism

[7by7]

24 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I resent your suggestion that our sympathy for any victims of violent assault is fake. 

That is a cheap shot.

 

As for "all the evidence", I am not confident that "all the evidence" has been released. There was most definitely a concerted effort by the authorities to release only minimal evidence for the first 24 hours in order to manipulate the readership by omitting the attackers name.

 

Because of that, I don't know if it can be taken for granted that all the evidence has now been released to the press.

 

when a Muslim goes on a killing frenzy and chooses to target white Europeans instead of ethnic muslims from his own community, then his religion would appear to play some part in his motivation. Whether you want to call it a "terrorist" attack or something else is your choice ofcourse.

 Cheap shot or not, the usual suspects who are all over a topic like this are noticeable by their absence from any topic about a crime which does not have a Muslim suspect or perpetrator. No expression of sympathy for the victims, no condemnation of the perpetrator, nothing.

 

Witness their absence from topics about sexual abuse of young boys by Catholic priests and young girls in a Church of England home compared to their swamping of topics about sexual abuse of young girls by Muslim taxi drivers.

 

It is obvious that certain members here are not interested in a crime or the victims of crime unless they can use the crime and the victims to advance their prejudice. Whether you belong to that group, only you know.

 

How many more times do I have to point out the ACPO guidelines?

 

The risk of media identification of crime suspects

Quote

ACPO guidelines on police naming of suspects

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) issued a set of guidelines to the police on this subject. The guidelines stated that the police should not generally provide the names of people under investigation to the media. If they do not actually identify the suspect, the police are allowed to give some details such as age, occupation or where the suspect is from.  

 

The ACPO guidelines also state that once an individual has been charged then the police can and will identify them to the media, usually providing name, age and occupation. There are certain exceptions; for instance this applies to adults (see other articles for juveniles). The official release of this information will include details of the charge and subsequent court appearances.

 

In what it terms ‘exceptional circumstances’, the ACPO guidelines accept that police may release the name of a suspect prior to a charge, if it is in the public interest to do so. Moreover, when a media organisation has already discovered the suspect’s name through investigative journalism and seek confirmation of it, the police are permitted to confirm the name.

The parts I have highlighted is exactly what has happened in this case.

 

No conspiracy of silence, no attempt to mislead; simply standard procedure which is followed regardless of the crime, the race, nationality or religion of the suspect.

 

The first sentence of the last last paragraph usually applies in cases where the police release the name of suspects they have yet to arrest and are trying to locate. The second sentence is self explanatory.

 

Got it now?

 

What evidence do you have that Bulhan specifically targeted non Muslims? All the eye witness reports in the media indicate he attacked people at random.

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Your attempted sarcasm is an insult to Darlene Horton, the other victims and their families.

 

 

Did someone mention something about "faux sympathy for victims,"?

[7by7]

dear pot, yours kettle

[Ulysses G.]

In other words, you admit it. 

[7by7]

No, merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

 

I have sympathy for the victims of all violence; not just when expressing it can be used to advance my prejudices; that's the difference.

 

That you cannot see the difference does not surprise me in the least.

Edited August 6, 2016 by 7by7

[Ulysses G.]

You accuse me of "hypocricy". With no proof of course - just unsubstantiated accusations and baseless insults.

 

Please provide an actual quote to prove your point. I just posted one of yours. The crocodile tears are not convincing anyone.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[ClutchClark]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Cheap shot or not, the usual suspects who are all over a topic like this are noticeable by their absence from any topic about a crime which does not have a Muslim suspect or perpetrator. No expression of sympathy for the victims, no condemnation of the perpetrator, nothing.

 

Witness their absence from topics about sexual abuse of young boys by Catholic priests and young girls in a Church of England home compared to their swamping of topics about sexual abuse of young girls by Muslim taxi drivers.

 

It is obvious that certain members here are not interested in a crime or the victims of crime unless they can use the crime and the victims to advance their prejudice. Whether you belong to that group, only you know.

 

How many more times do I have to point out the ACPO guidelines?

 

The risk of media identification of crime suspects

The parts I have highlighted is exactly what has happened in this case.

 

No conspiracy of silence, no attempt to mislead; simply standard procedure which is followed regardless of the crime, the race, nationality or religion of the suspect.

 

The first sentence of the last last paragraph usually applies in cases where the police release the name of suspects they have yet to arrest and are trying to locate. The second sentence is self explanatory.

 

Got it now?

 

What evidence do you have that Bulhan specifically targeted non Muslims? All the eye witness reports in the media indicate he attacked people at random.

 

Poor boy, your timeline appears to be off and you inclusion of the ACPO guidelines only proves my position.

 

The attacker was wrestled to the ground by vigilant police officers moments following the attack and according to the news, he was arrested and charged with "suspicion of murder" and then immediately brought to the hospital that same night.

 

He was not just being "investigated" for those 24 hours his name was not released, he was under arrest and charged with a serious crime while an investigation continued.  

 

The guidelines you have posted are for the protection of citizens privacy rights who are only under investigation. For example, the recent and numerous accusations against well-known and law-abiding citizens only recently accused of historic sex abuse allegations dating back to the 1970's.  Naming these people in public based only on an allegation could have long term devastating ramifications on their lives and professions even if the police investigation later found them innocent of the allegations.

 

Got it? I have tried to make this simple for you.

[7by7]

47 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

I live in London and my experiences have brought out the Islamaphobe in me just like it has with many Londoners. They know what we think of them and the feeling is mutual and obvious and is getting worse. I was due to use the bus and tube services on 7/7 were you?

 

I live just outside the M25 in a town with a significant Muslim population. I travel into various parts of London everyday.

 

I work with Muslims, I have Muslim neighbours and, yes, Muslim friends. None of whom have ever expressed anything but contempt and condemnation for the activities of ISIS and others who, as they put it, blacken the name of their religion.

 

Perhaps you should actually try and engage with your Muslim neighbours, if you have any, rather than ignoring them. You will be pleasantly surprised.

 

Not to say that there aren't Muslim a*holes; that particular affliction occurs in all communities.

 

I, too, was in Central London on 7/7; but don't hate all Muslims because of it.

 

I was also, as I've said before, due in the Horse and Groom on the night the IRA bomb went off; the friends I was on my way to meet were already there and were injured. I don't hate all Irish because of it.

[7by7]

15 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Poor boy, your timeline appears to be off and you inclusion of the ACPO guidelines only proves my position.

 

The attacker was wrestled to the ground by vigilant police officers moments following the attack and according to the news, he was arrested and charged with "suspicion of murder" and then immediately brought to the hospital that same night.

 

He was not just being "investigated" for those 24 hours his name was not released, he was under arrest and charged with a serious crime while an investigation continued.  

 

The guidelines you have posted are for the protection of citizens privacy rights who are only under investigation. For example, the recent and numerous accusations against well-known and law-abiding citizens only recently accused of historic sex abuse allegations dating back to the 1970's.  Naming these people in public based only on an allegation could have long term devastating ramifications on their lives and professions even if the police investigation later found them innocent of the allegations.

 

Got it? I have tried to make this simple for you.

 

Bulhan was, indeed, arrested at the scene. Well done .

 

However, he was not formally charged until yesterday, at which time his name was released to the press.

 

The ACPO guidelines apply in all cases; not just those that suit you.

 

I notice you have (deliberately?) failed to answer the question "What evidence do you have that Bulhan specifically targeted non Muslims?"

 

Will you know do so?

[7by7]

21 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

You accuse me of "hypocricy". With no proof of course - just unsubstantiated accusations and baseless insults.

 

Please provide an actual quote to prove your point. I just posted one of yours. The crocodile tears are not convincing anyone.

 

How can a provide a quote from a post you have never made?

[Ulysses G.]

Who cares if he targeted non-Muslims? Radical Muslims are quite happy to kill each other. They target innocents in general. They are not picky about who they  murder.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Bulhan was, indeed, arrested at the scene. Well done .

 

However, he was not formally charged until yesterday, at which time his name was released to the press.

 

The ACPO guidelines apply in all cases; not just those that suit you.

 

I notice you have (deliberately?) failed to answer the question "What evidence do you have that Bulhan specifically targeted non Muslims?"

 

Will you know do so?

 

According to the UK Mail dated August 03, he was charged prior to being taken to hospital.

you can read it here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3722796/Woman-killed-five-people-injured-terrorist-knife-attack-central-London.html

 

I urge you to bring up your argument with them. 

 

I also urge you to become familiar with UK Law. You only seem to be good at cut&paste without having any understanding of the contents. 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

How can a provide a quote from a post you have never made?

 

That is my point. Do not quit your day job to become a mind reader. With your record, you will starve.

[ClutchClark]

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Bulhan was, indeed, arrested at the scene. Well done .

 

However, he was not formally charged until yesterday, at which time his name was released to the press.

 

The ACPO guidelines apply in all cases; not just those that suit you.

 

I notice you have (deliberately?) failed to answer the question "What evidence do you have that Bulhan specifically targeted non Muslims?"

 

Will you know do so?

 

Please quote me correctly or it suggests you either lack reading comprehension skills or are intentionally baiting with a strawman argument.

 

I said, "when a Muslim goes on a killing frenzy and chooses to target white Europeans instead of ethnic muslims from his own community...."

 

I am not sure how you can possibly argue this. For the love of God, man, just take a look at his victims and point out to me the muslim victims from his own community (Somali).

 

And you won't receive any more responses from me until you can disprove what I said. 

My patience have worn thin.

[trucking]

11 hours ago, yogi100 said:

 

Witnesses have said they heard an explosion.

 

Couldn't find any candles so accidentally used small sticks of dynamite. Easier enough mistake.

 

Lets not assume it is terrorism when there is a perfectly plausible alternative explanation.

[GuestHouse]

Lots of accusations above by members claiming the police unduly withheld Bulham's name, but no clear indication what they believe the police motives were.

 

Its obviously something of a point of discussion, I've given reasons I believe they may have chosen to withhold his name, so if you believe the police unduly withheld Bulham's name, what do you think the police's motives were?

 

 

 

[7by7]

22 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

According to the UK Mail dated August 03, he was charged prior to being taken to hospital.

you can read it here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3722796/Woman-killed-five-people-injured-terrorist-knife-attack-central-London.html

 

I urge you to bring up your argument with them. 

 

I also urge you to become familiar with UK Law. You only seem to be good at cut&paste without having any understanding of the contents. 

 

 

 

 I've read through that article three times now, and cannot find where it says he was charged prior to being taken to hospital. The closest I can find is

Quote

Somali, who  Tasered  (sic) and spent night in hospital before being taken to a South London police station

(and)
A 19-year-old of Somali origin, who came to the UK from Norway in 2002, has been arrested on suspicion of murder after he stabbed six people in Russell Square at around 10.30pm last night.

(and)

 The teenager, a Somali who came to Britain from Norway aged five, was arrested on suspicion of murder and he spent the night in hospital before being moved to a south London police station.

(and)

A 19-year-old of Somali origin, who came to the UK from Norway in 2002, has been arrested on suspicion of murder after he stabbed six people in Russell Square at around 10.30pm last night.

and similar.

 

Perhaps you can point out where in that article it does say that he was "charged prior to being taken to hospital."

 

Unless your knowledge of English law (not UK law) so poor that you think 'arrested' and 'charged' are the same thing?

 

While you are at it, will you now finally tell us how you know he specifically targeted non Muslims. Even your Mail article says otherwise!

Quote

One witness said: 'There was a madman running around with a knife just lunging at people randomly and stabbing them. He was just going for anyone he could see' 

(and)

Witnesses say killer was slashing 'anyone he could see' with his knife before he was Tasered by police.

 

[ClutchClark]

45 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Bulhan was, indeed, arrested at the scene. Well done .

 

However, he was not formally charged until yesterday, at which time his name was released to the press.

 

The ACPO guidelines apply in all cases; not just those that suit you.

 

I notice you have (deliberately?) failed to answer the question "What evidence do you have that Bulhan specifically targeted non Muslims?"

 

Will you know do so?

 

This is from your own ACPO quote and the Bold is from you as well. 

 

The ACPO guidelines also state that once an individual has been charged then the police can and will identify them to the media,usually providing name, age and occupation.

 

-------------

 

Why is this so hard for you? He was arrested and charged minutes after the attack. His name was not released for nearly 24 hours after his arrest even though the ACPO guidelines you have provided clearly state the authorities had the right to provide that information.

[7by7]

28 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Please quote me correctly or it suggests you either lack reading comprehension skills or are intentionally baiting with a strawman argument.

 

I said, "when a Muslim goes on a killing frenzy and chooses to target white Europeans instead of ethnic muslims from his own community...."

 

I am not sure how you can possibly argue this. For the love of God, man, just take a look at his victims and point out to me the muslim victims from his own community (Somali).

 

And you won't receive any more responses from me until you can disprove what I said. 

My patience have worn thin.

 Since you refuse to provide any evidence to back your claim that he specifically targeted non Muslims, white Europeans or whatever phrase you prefer, despite all the published reports that he attacked people at random, despite the fact that only one victim (a Brit) was from Europe, despite the fact that to date only one victim has been identified so we do not know the skin colour, let alone religion, of the others (even the Israeli is not necessarily Jewish) the only possible conclusion is that you made it up.

[7by7]

5 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

This is from your own ACPO quote and the Bold is from you as well. 

 

The ACPO guidelines also state that once an individual has been charged then the police can and will identify them to the media,usually providing name, age and occupation.

 

-------------

 

Why is this so hard for you? He was arrested and charged minutes after the attack. His name was not released for nearly 24 hours after his arrest even though the ACPO guidelines you have provided clearly state the authorities had the right to provide that information.

 

He was arrested minutes after the attack, but not charged until yesterday.

 

Even the Daily Mail article you offered as evidence makes no mention of him being charged "minutes after his arrest" or if it does I couldn't find it after reading through it three times.

 

[GuestHouse]

16 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

This is from your own ACPO quote and the Bold is from you as well. 

 

The ACPO guidelines also state that once an individual has been charged then the police can and will identify them to the media,usually providing name, age and occupation.

 

-------------

 

Why is this so hard for you? He was arrested and charged minutes after the attack. His name was not released for nearly 24 hours after his arrest even though the ACPO guidelines you have provided clearly state the authorities had the right to provide that information.

 

You are quite correct, the ACPO guidelines state the police can and will identify a suspect to the media once the individual has been charged. 

 

Bulham was arrested at the scene on Wednesday evening, he was not charged until Friday morning. http://www.newswest9.com/story/32696618/uk-police-charge-19-year-old-with-london-stabbings

 

You are also correct that his name was not released until more than 24 hours after his arrest, but as you point out the clock starts ticking once he has been charged. 

 

The police have made numerous statements regarding their actions and investigation following his arrest, these all seem very reasonable steps to establishing charges to place in front of the magistrates courts in order to secure his detention pending further investigation and trial in (open) court. 

 

 

[FinChin67]

It's an epidemic of biblical (quranic) proportions EU wide...

 

A pair of police officers have been attacked with a 'machete' by a man shouting 'Allahu Akhbar' outside a police station in Belgium, it has been reported.

The cops, one of them female, was attacked in the city of Charleroi this afternoon by an someone with a knife or machete, according to Belgian media.

Police in Charleroi tweeted: "Two police officers injured by machete in front of police by someone shouting Allah Akhkbar.

"Individual was shot but is alive."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/belgium-police-stabbing-female-officer-8574786

[7by7]

The evidence in that Belgian attack shows it was probably a terrorism motivated attack.

 

The evidence in this London case shows that it probably wasn't.

 

That is the way things stand at the moment; more may come out when both cases come to court. Although unconfirmed reports state that the shot Belgian attacker has since died so, obviously, there wont be a trial.

 

 

[ClutchClark]

A problem appeared with this webpage so it was reloaded.

 

Have you gents been getting this message?

 

I have not been able to get on the forum for 20 minutes.

[Ulysses G.]

20 minutes ago, FinChin67 said:

A pair of police officers have been attacked with a 'machete' by a man shouting 'Allahu Akhbar' outside a police station in Belgium, it has been reported.

 

 

Nothing to do with Islam. Nothing to do with terrorism. Next!

[ClutchClark]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The evidence in that Belgian attack shows it was probably a terrorism motivated attack.

 

The evidence in this London case shows that it probably wasn't.

 

That is the way things stand at the moment; more may come out when both cases come to court. Although unconfirmed reports state that the shot Belgian attacker has since died so, obviously, there wont be a trial.

 

 

 

Yes, the giveaway was the Belgium suspect yelling Allah Akbar while wildly swinging the machete.

 

When police arrived at Russell Square immediately following the attack they asked witnesses if the suspect had yelled anything. 

 

Yelling Allah Akbar is usually a good clue that the attacker is muslim; however, the absence of the attacker shouting Allah Akbar does not exclude the attack was motivated by the muslim religion.  

 

Why did the Britain muslim attacker decide to attack people in the Bloomsbury area, which is popular with tourists and has many hotels? Why did the muslim attacker not attempt to kill people in his own neighborhood with a high muslim population? 

 

I do not question the investigative efforts of the British police and if anyone knows my posts on TVF, they know I am pro law enforcement. I am not suggesting a conspiracy by the British police as some lowlife here on this thread  has suggested.

 

I am posting this before I lose the server agsin.

[ClutchClark]

As for the nationalities and identities of the Russell Square knife attack victims, they are all available in news articles online and that is where I have gleaned the information I have presented here--after having read nearly two dozen news articles on the attack.

 

If I linked the wrong article then all you have to do is some reading and you will find more.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2016 by ClutchClark

[JHolmesJr]

Whats a somali man doing living in the uk anyway? 

 

Is he on the uk  marathon team?

[ClutchClark]

So can someone provide the exact time and date that the formal charges were made?

 

And can you offer it in Grenwich Time? 

 

Thanks

[yogi100]

16 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The evidence in that Belgian attack shows it was probably a terrorism motivated attack.

 

The evidence in this London case shows that it probably wasn't.

 

That is the way things stand at the moment; more may come out when both cases come to court. Although unconfirmed reports state that the shot Belgian attacker has since died so, obviously, there wont be a trial.

 

 

 

"The evidence in this London case shows that it probably wasn't".

 

From what we've heard of the evidence and from what has been reported it probably was.

 

A Muslim attacking six non Muslims in the Summer of 2016 can only point to it being a terrorist attack in spite of all the PC spin the authorities are trying to put out on the incident. Cos he did not yell out Allah Akbar at the time does not mean it was not an act of terrorism.