MP Jo Cox shooting

M

Marb

Journeyman
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
7,819
Shocking scenes in her constituency, very best wishes to the lady and her family.
 
Being reported that it was a Brexit fanatic shouting "Britain first, Britain first"

Can't find confirmation of that myself, but the fact that the BBC are quoting Farage and Boris so prominently makes me think there's something to it?
 
Last edited:
Desperately sad.

There will be ramifications but they're not for today.

She seemed like a genuinely caring politician, too young, awful.
 
Horrible and very sad. I can't make any sense of it but maybe it's a good moment to recognise that many politicians show courage and make personal sacrifices that we don't sufficiently acknowledge.
 
Mentally ill most probably.
Brings back the Samurai sword attack on that poor MP in Montpellier, Cheltenham.
 
I must admit, I'm normally quite hardened to these sorts of things, almost desensitised at times, but I feel strangely very sad about this. I don't know why, but something just seems very different
 
Same here Warbler

A young, engaging, intelligent, attractive woman and mother of two very young children

Simple observations; but to be sensitised and saddened by those facts is not trite
 
I think she reminds me of someone, which is why its struck a bit more of a chord

The terrorist has given his name to the court as "Death to Traitors, Freedom for Britain", which does blow a bit of a hole in the argument made by some of his right wing apologists who were claiming that he never shouted anything nationalist during the attack. I was never convinced we actually needed to run this referendum anyway.

Incidentally, this is what Nigel Farage said a few weeks ago

"I think it's legitimate to say, that if people feel they've lost control, completely, and we have lost control of our borders completely as members of the European Union, and if people feel that voting doesn't change anything, then violence is the next step"

He will of course say that this is just an observation (in America they call it dog-whistling) but I'd almost be inclined to try and prosecute Farage (little chance of succeeding admittedly) but it might at least shut him up
 
I'm sorry,Warbler, but your post above is simplistic, biased nonsense to me.
If a Muslim perpetrates an outrage, we are immediately told that "this has nothing to do with Islam".
If a mentally sick Briton carries out a similar murder, then, it is "all down to that Brexit crowd".
 
icebreaker said:
If a Muslim perpetrates an outrage, we are immediately told that "this has nothing to do with Islam".
Click to expand...

Can't say I've ever noticed the Daily Mail, Sun, Express, or Metro lead with that narrative myself, or the Telegraph for that matter. Indeed, all will typically rail against that sort of description. I'm told (don't read it myself so will have to take it on trust) that the Mail described him as a "quiet gardener". And the Sun, (whose headline I did catch yesterday) led with a description of a mental health condition and completely airbrushed any connection to the current referendum (the Star incidentally described him as a "Brexit gunman")

Most politicians (not all) and public officials might go with the line that this isn't typical of Islam etc as they gain nothing from inflaming situations, our media however march to a different tune, and their reach is greater than any politicians. I think you're picking the messenger that suits you
 
Warbler said:
Can't say I've ever noticed the Daily Mail, Sun, Express, or Metro lead with that narrative myself, or the Telegraph for that matter. Indeed, all will typically rail against that sort of description.
Click to expand...
FFS, ............... Obama, Cameron and the entire liberal/left are always running that line -- that whatever outrage is perpetrated by an islamist has nothing to do with Islam.
Yet you, perversely, in your previous post have been so quick to obliquely make a connection with Farage and the Leave movement to the tragic killing of Joe Cox that can -- and should -- be sourced to the action of a deeply mentally troubled man.
That's all I'm saying .................
 
Spot on ice. The bbc routinely run that line even when it's a clear organised islamist attack too.

Nasty stuff and not worth getting into.

Warbler I don't like bringing up old posts as I have had to state already but I remember your dismissal of Ken loachs actual endorsement of physical attacks on Jews in Europe as " left wing romanticism"

So drop.it
 
I've certainly suggested that Loach's film 'Land of Freedom' was romanticism but that was about the Spanish Civil War and the context was different (Syria I think?), it had nothing to do with jews.

I have from time to time however suggested that violence and politics go hand in hand, and at times its necessary, (same as Farage is doing) when he describes it as being "legitimate" under certain specified circumstances, and then goes onto suggest that those conditions have been met

"I think it's legitimate to say, that if people feel they've lost control, completely, and we have lost control of our borders completely as members of the European Union, and if people feel that voting doesn't change anything, then violence is the next step"

I've always said that if you go down that route though, their are consequences. If you accept those consequences, then that's a decalaration

I also made it perfectly clear that in terms of mixed messaging there are two distinct approaches

"Most politicians (not all) and public officials might go with the line that this isn't typical of Islam etc (the apologist line for want of a better name) as they gain nothing from inflaming situations, our media however march to a different tune, and their reach is greater than any politicians."

Yes you can invoke the BBC as an example, a state broadcaster who often tow a government line anyway, and you can also dig out the Guardian too if you want to be predictable, for the most part though the media will push a different angle to the political class, and these days of course you also have unregulated social media which is arguably a bigger influencer
 
I'm not having it warbler

Farage has never ever called for or excused attacks on any particular section of society.

Loach did. Emphatically. You dismissed that as him being a "left wing romantic". I don't expect you to remember it but that was the case. He actually endorsed attacks. Farage most certainly has not

i would not bring it up and I have no time for farage but this is too much ...

It's pretty tasteless to go around trying to link someone who would clearly never call for violence against MPs, to this murder and who had no link whatsoever to the attacker who in turn has certainly not invoked UKIP as an influence.

Claiming that the bbc is a government mouthpiece is quite extraordinary. the paranoia about the rest of the media (which I would wager does not stand up to scrutiny) is best left for another day
 
Last edited:
Forget I brought loach up warbler and for what it's worth I'm certainly not suggesting you endorsed him
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I have from time to time however suggested that violence and politics go hand in hand, and at times its necessary, (same as Farage is doing) when he describes it as being "legitimate" under certain specified circumstances, and then goes onto suggest that those conditions have been met

"I think it's legitimate to say, that if people feel they've lost control, completely, and we have lost control of our borders completely as members of the European Union, and if people feel that voting doesn't change anything, then violence is the next step"
Click to expand...
Stop it. Just stop.
I would have thought that you -- a person of quite some intellect -- could have understood the thrust of the statement. Farage said that "I think it's legitimate to say violence is the next step",and NOT that violence itself is legitimate. He was giving a warning/a forecast for crying out loud, not making a call to arms. Even my old ginger tomcat can see the difference, it is so glaring.

As for Ken Loach .............. don't get me started. This old goat of some standing worldwide is even worse than the usual anti-semite in that he said physical attacks on Jews were understandable. You, if you dismissed this as "left wing romanticism" are nothing less than acquiescent in vile anti-Jewish agitprop.
 
clivex said:
It's pretty tasteless to go around trying to link someone who would clearly never call for violence against MPs, to this murder and who had no link whatsoever to the attacker who in turn has certainly not invoked UKIP as an influence.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point Clive. I suggested it's, a 'dog-whistle'. This is what I actually said;

"He will of course say that this is just an observation (in America they call it dog-whistling)"

Dog whistle politics is relatively new to the UK, but its something American's are more than familiar with since Nixon. It isn't directed at any one action. It's deliberately vague.

All of this bluster about him not calling for a specific targeted action fits the description perfectly. That's bascially what dog whistle politics is. Dog whistling is designed precisely to avoid the allegation, but sow the seed without stating it. It's a communication technique that's designed precisely to be inaudible to most people other than those who are receptive to it. It's also designed to give the orator plausible denial, which in this case Farage would have.

Anyway, if you want to know a bit more about it, I've dug a quick wiki out for you (its not me inventing terms in the name of poetic description). I suspect we'll be hearing a bit more about this particular brand of politicking in the future

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

So back to Falange.

Farage is describing circumstances under which "violence" (the next step) is "legitimate". He qualifies it though by describing circumstances that would need to be met before we reached this point of legitimacy. He then goes onto explain that when these conditions are met, then he expects violence to happen (this is the 'observation' - a term I actually used in the original post). Critically though, having laid out the foundation, Farage then goes on to suggest that these conditions have indeed been met (the judgement/ endorsement). In other words he's suggesting that violence is legitimate in the face of conditions that he now believes apply to the UK, but stops short of calling outright for it (he wouldn't be so daft as to do that). When you combine the observation with the endorsement, you have grounds for a dog-whistle statement.

Now in fairness, the statement was in an interview where the subject is more likely to err on the side of error, rather than a pre-meditated speech, but it's otherwise a classic dog-whistle. You'd be hard pressed to find a better example of one (certainly in the UK).
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
You, if you dismissed this as "left wing romanticism" are nothing less than acquiescent in vile anti-Jewish agitprop.
Click to expand...

No I didn't, and I suspect that Clive has now checked his facts out and realised I didn't

"Forget I brought loach up warbler and for what it's worth I'm certainly not suggesting you endorsed him"

You should know that the burden of proof in cyberspace is that you're innocent until you're accused
 
Last edited:
I'm not having this. Farage has been around a good while now and we are all familiar with him. aside from being deliberately misquoted he's made thousands of speeches and I cannot ever recall any suggestion of of a call for violence at any stage. This is nasty stuff in light of what's occurred

quite frankly I think most could quite easily see that to do so would completely out of Synch with his character.

we could however go through a list of those politicians and dictators around the world who over the last 50 years have murdered political opponents ... Couldn't we..
 
Last edited:
Back
Top