I’d give Kester’s essay no more than 2/10.
There have been hundreds of murders of innocents by political fanatics in this country over the last 50 odd years. The left wing, and Labour in particular, generally supports, excuses or tries to explain away terrorism. Whether it’s the IRA murdering children, or Hamas murdering children, or the 7/7 bombers murdering commuters, or Al Qaeda doing 9/11, or the Russian government poisoning its enemies in English county towns, or thugs murdering police officers or looting shops, the left is always pretty clear that the victims in some measure had it coming, or were clearly in the wrong place with the wrong opinions or uniform. The target is almost always a western democracy, so the left supports all attackers of it.
When one of their own, of utterly unimpeachable crypto-Marxist saintly virtue, is killed by a nutter, the world really has turned upside down, and that really is a scandal. Nutters are only supposed to murder people the left already despises anyway: Jews, British soldiers, Tory politicians, people with jobs.
There’s thus a presupposition embedded here that Mair’s Brexit-y crime (yes, we spotted that) was exceptionally bad. He wasn’t a Muslim legitimately murdering commuters, or a Hamas terrorist murdering Jews; no such person gets a handwringing Kester essay trying to fathom the nature of their evil. No, his real crime was worse than that: it was to be white and to hold views of other races indistinguishable from those the IRA, Muslims, Hamas, and all Kester’s other preferred terrorists hold of Britain and the west.
All those types are held to a lower standard than the white Mair, who’s especially damned because he’s white and because his victim mattered and the 7/7 killers’ didn’t. One white nutter thinking terrorism a good idea is monstrous, 600,000 UK Muslims thinking the 7/7 attacks were justified is unworthy of study.
When I read something from the left about the unique evil of the 7/7 bombers or the murderers of PC Blakelock or the black youths of London murdering each other, I’ll take this kind of bleating seriously, but until then the subtext to this effort is “only the enemies of the left should die this way”.
Classic whataboutery. The author is writing about Mair, and what might have motivated him to do what he did. He’s not writing about the motives of members of Hamas, IRA, jihadis etc, or attempting to place Mair in a league table of evil-doers.
Rubbish. He thinks Jo Cox’s murder is uniquely bad because she was a lefty. This article would simply not exist if Mair had murdered Nigel Farage. He wouldn’t have cared, and nor would Cox.
The choice of subject exposes his bigotry, so it’s wholly on point to bring this up, especially as Cox was herself a friend and supporter of anti-Semitic terrorists and Labour Party leaders.
Mr. Aspden has written a book about a black criminal he says was killed by police officers. So where’s his book about PC Blakelock, a police officer killed by black criminals?
I assume you’re referring to the ‘so what you’re saying is…’ line of argument.
I don’t think I’m the Cathy Newman here. From some of your comments:
‘He thinks Jo Cox’s murder is uniquely bad because…‘ ‘…the writer thinks her murder was uniquely horrible, apparently because…’. ‘Between the lines, it’s obvious that the writer is…’ ‘The strong inference is that…’ My italics. All inferences drawn, Newman-style, not from what the writer says, but from what he doesn’t say or what you think he might or should be saying. You’re also doing precisely what you accuse the writer (and Jo Cox) of – applying moral relativism when it comes to the actions of the party you sympathise with, while decrying that same relativism when displayed by those you criticise.
That’s Ok. It’s not really like that.
But given what they’ve done, support for Hamas and ISIS is clearly a form of hate speech – certainly a lot worse than that for which Maya Forstater (see this edition) was sacked. As hate speech, people are usually forgiven when they are stirred up by it.
Thanks for this comment. The left continues to hold itself above the rule of law and support terror as a political method so they will continue to be at risk that someone will push back. It should be the security services, the police and the courts but for some reason they are not willing or able. Defeating the violent proxies of leftism will take a lot more than the likes of Mair, who at least got someone who had thrown her lot in via Labour membership with terrorists Hamas, Hizbollah etc. Breivik and the NZ Mosque nutter just make the problem worse as like Labour’s proxies their victims were random and all appear to be civilians. If civil society cannot muster the strength to confront political terror from the left then terror from the right will fill the gap and make a bad situation worse.
David Slade
2 years ago
This is the problem with these grand gestures of placing violent offenders in isolation from anyone who could understand them. It means the true nature of their motivations – and therefore if their actions are ‘indicative’ of any wider problem in society – is never properly understood.
It’s the same with the Christchurch killer – putting them beyond consideration – the NZ PM refused to even say their name – is an understandable emotional response but it turns them in to abstract characters whose motivations can be second guessed at to fit whatever narrative the authorities (or anyone else) want to push.
It would appear from the article , for instance, that Jo Coxs’ killing was not indicative of a far right rot in the UK after all, but that is how it has been continuously regurgitated.
Unless we get away from these emotive responses and grandstanding we will never be able to understand and contextualise the threat these people pose. They will always just be assumed to be ‘indicative’ of whatever point people want to make.
Frederick B
2 years ago
When I heard of this murder, which was almost immediately attributed to the far right, I despaired that it might cost us Brexit as the opinion polls were then very finely balanced. A few months I heard a prominent and active advocate for Brexit say that, in his guesstimate, the result would have been nearer 60/40 for Brexit had the murder not occurred. It seems plausible, but who really knows?
Strangely convenient in fact. One of the odd features of this case was that he was caught in a cul-de-sac and the police called out his name. How did the police know who the suspect was?
Nick Faulks
2 years ago
Where is he now? Is he even alive? His family’s attempts to discover such basic information through FoI requests have been rejected.
There is obviously more to this given the states absolute determination to make sure no one can discuss his case , motivations etc. I am surprised more people aren’t talking about this.
James Chater
2 years ago
Don’t we know enough about this man? Criminology has its proper uses but so often ‘criminologists’ seem to be in the business of titillation too. I had to force myself to finish reading this.
It is instructive that the comment on here receiving the most green thumbs ups so far, focuses more on the supposed selectivity of the Left, rather than the wretched subject himself. Extraordinary
I am on the ‘left/centre’. There are no excuses for any acts of terrorism or murder.
As the writer says, using the so-called ‘bike lock theory’, the febrile atmosphere around the EU Referendum campaign provided one of the ‘numbers’ to release the ‘lock’.
I sense the accounts given here of what Jo Cox was actually like probably come as a total surprise to you.
Her views were utterly abhorrent to any normal person, but the lunacy and hatred of the left have now gone so far that her being a Corbyn-, ISIL- and Muslim-paedophile-rape-gang-supporter strike you as nothing out of the ordinary; all perfectly acceptable left-wing positions.
As a result, the author – and I guess you – think there’s something uniquely awful about some nutter objecting so much to this that he murdered her. It’s as though it’s somehow in bad taste for these matters to be brought up. These rightie loonies must be especially wicked to murder such a saint.
Get the beam out of your eye.
She’s an extreme leftie so she desserved to die did she? That’s a repulsive argument Jon.
She was an MP for Batley and Spen – meaning I’m certain she wasn’t leading some leftist Marxist Stalinist policy of killing and gulaging. You can’t hold her responsible for weaknesses in leftist arguments.
You sound like you condone killing people because of their political ideology.
I don’t think he sounds like that at all but a lot of left sympathisers sound like THEY condone killing of people who disagree with them. Israelis, for example.
Read The Forgotten Rachels by Tom Gross.
No, that’s not what I said. I pointed out that the writer thinks her murder was uniquely horrible, apparently because – very unusually – it was done by some nutter who appears to have sympathies with the extreme right.
Jo Cox was herself, however, an extreme left-wing nutter and sympathiser / supporter of causes who murder on a much more prolific scale, and who choose their victims either by race, or randomly, or simply because they are easy to murder.
The idea that the murder of one such extremist by another was somehow so much worse than murders of innocents by left-wing or Islamofascist criminals that it needs a special article all about it is, therefore, moral incompetence on a breathtaking scale. Between the lines, it’s obvious that the writer is flabbergasted that his own side, rather than his enemies, might be at risk of murder by vicious loonies.
The author is a crime writer, trying to make sense of the insane murderer, Thomas Mair. He is not overly interested in the innocent victim, Jo Cox.
The rest of the comment seems to be saying she ‘had it coming to her’ because she was a Corbyn supporter, ‘OK’ with ISIS, Muslim paedophiles etc. Alarming monstrous skewed ‘logic’ in itself.
With regards ‘eyes’ and ‘beams’. What?
Last edited 2 years ago by James Chater
David Yetter
2 years ago
I ticked the thumbs down, because one really oughtn’t speak ill of the dead. I do, however want to thank you for calling the most recent pack of Sunni jihadis to plague the Middle East, “Daesh”. First it really bothers them as it is a slur in Arabic, and second I hate their having ruined the use of Isis in things really referring to the river through Oxford or the Babylonian goddess of wisdom. (It isn’t even an acronym for a good translation from the Arabic. ISIL is better since “al Sham” is not Syria, but the Levant.
Mangle Tangle
2 years ago
A poor essay, I’m afraid, with a click-bait type headline. Sorry, but that’s how I see it. There are examples of rational and caring people who kill others. For example, war, or self-defence. Or the man (Princeps) who assassinated the Arch-Duke back in 1913 (he did it for cold, ‘reasonable’ reasons but was otherwise – by all accounts – a normal person). I’m afraid this murderer of Jo Cox falls into the much much larger category of nutters. Now, you can obsess and analyse all you want but at the end of the day he (or she) are just plain odd – and dangerous. Who they eventually fixate on is – well – terribly bad luck for the person chosen, and that’s it. So given that, any ‘analysis’ which explores the motivation of the murderer and the background and context of the victim is at best pointless and at worst doing a disservice to the victim. That latter consideration should have given the editor pause before he accepted this article.
So it was a motiveless killing then? I for one, after reading this article, have no idea what his true motives were.
Roger Inkpen
2 years ago
Putting this guy down as a far right nutter who murdered an innocent MP over Brexit never really convinced me.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but the Syria/Russia angle bothers me. Amongst her many other saintly causes, Jo Cox was a known supporter of the White Helmets – the civilian rescue workers in Syria.
Many on the far-right as well as the far-left consider the White Helmets some kind of western proxy, not only trying to destabilise the Assad regime, but also aid Isis and any other Islamist groups operating in the country.
I’d recommend the podcast ‘Intrigue’ which details a lot of this.
She also opposed the bombing of Syria because it wasn’t Assad who was being bombed. She was actually trying to protect ISIL, who she didn’t think should be bombed if he weren’t.
This is, of course, a totally incoherent position: she wanted us to attack both sides. Either she thought there was somehow a way this would cause both sides to lose, or she wanted Assad attacked so he would lose and ISIL would win. My money’s on the second.
This doesn’t require a Russian conspiracy; it just requires her to have been callous, anti-white and rather stupid. The probability that all these were so is lent support by the fact that she went off on one, when she won her seat, about how great multiculturalism was, while Asian paedophile gangs were raping white children in her own constituency.
I normally hate the phrase “victim blaming” but why oh why are you justifying the murder of Jo Cox? Given his library of far right literature, it’s not unreasonable to cite Mair’s politics as motivation. Though maybe, as Michael Smith said, he’s just a nutter and his politics had nothing to do with his choice of victim here.
Learn to read. I am not “justifying the murder of Jo Cox”. I am questioning why the writer thinks it was uniquely bad compared to the hundreds of other political murders we have seen in recent times. The strong inference is that it was uniquely bad because it was of someone on the extreme left by someone on the right. Murders by people on the left or whom the left supports – Hamas, ISIL, Hezbollah, the IRA – are fine and dandy. We don’t need any articles about the victims of those. But we can’t have any left wing loonies being murdered or what’s the world coming to?
So far as the left is concerned, there are those the perpetrators that deserves every ounce of vilification that the left can summon, and indeed who presents the opportunity to vilify by association, however tenuous, their political enemies; the present article being a case in point
And then there those perpetrators about whom they are remarkably silent and whose victims need to be be quickly and quietly forgotten. I give you the Asian rape gangs and Kriss Donald
Last edited 2 years ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Mike Smith
2 years ago
The most chilling part of this story is this section: Mair’s guilt and motivation was never in question. In his sentencing remarks, the judge said: “There is no doubt that this murder was done for the purpose of advancing a political, racial and ideological cause namely that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism most associated with Nazism and its modern forms.”
Surely in any case, there must always be some doubt?
Martin Smith
2 years ago
As John Major said, time to understand a little less and punish a little more…
So why was this raised then? Are your reading comprehension skills maybe not up to much?
Go on, have at it: what was being slyly hinted at by
On the Leave side, any suggestion of shared sympathies with a racist killer, however remote, was greeted with contempt and indignation, and the perpetrator was cast as a mentally-ill loner.
given that the remainder of the piece dedicates itself to proving that he was not “a mentally-ill loner”?
Quoting anything John Major says usually makes me think the opposite must be true. For a person to behave in this appalling way must mean that they are mentally ill, and the more we can work out what the causes and cures might be, the better.
Whether a crime writer is the best person for such a task I very much doubt; I can quite understand that the prison authorities, trying a measure of cure and rehabilitation, would certainly not want an amateur intervening in their process to get a dramatic story that might help sell a book.
Well, yes, but Jo Cox was a selectively-educated opponent of selective education, an advocate of sex equality who got her seat off an all-women shortlist, a Corbyn nominator and supporter of Labour Friends of Palestine (i.e. of Hamas and Hezbollah), an opponent of bombing ISIS in Syria, and completely bought in to the wonders of multiculturalism.
It says much that views as extreme as hers are so unremarkable in the current Labour party that she can be deified as though she were a worthy and completely uncontroversial figure. The fact is that she was just as much a nutter as Corbyn. Had Mair been a Muslim who murdered a white Conservative politician, she would certainly have had nothing to say, nor any regret to express on the matter.
All political murder is reprehensible but it isn’t automatically worse when people of the left are those getting murdered. There is no natural order of political murder that says it can only happen to innocents and the right.
Cox was working on an “Islamophobia” report when she was killed whilst remaining completely silent on the grooming and rape of young white working class girls by Muslim men in her constituency.
There have been a series of court cases involving perpetrators from Batley and other Kirklees constitutiences in the last few years and its difficult to believe that Cox wasn’t aware to some extent of what was going on.
One of which was headlines (with the ‘celebrity squares’ pictures of all ‘Asian’ men on the front page of the local rag) that week.
That more isn’t made of this is the answer to why Mair is isolated from communication. That and the coordinated (and obvious) attempt to make it about Brexit suggests it was nothing other than ‘arranged’.
I’d give Kester’s essay no more than 2/10.
There have been hundreds of murders of innocents by political fanatics in this country over the last 50 odd years. The left wing, and Labour in particular, generally supports, excuses or tries to explain away terrorism. Whether it’s the IRA murdering children, or Hamas murdering children, or the 7/7 bombers murdering commuters, or Al Qaeda doing 9/11, or the Russian government poisoning its enemies in English county towns, or thugs murdering police officers or looting shops, the left is always pretty clear that the victims in some measure had it coming, or were clearly in the wrong place with the wrong opinions or uniform. The target is almost always a western democracy, so the left supports all attackers of it.
When one of their own, of utterly unimpeachable crypto-Marxist saintly virtue, is killed by a nutter, the world really has turned upside down, and that really is a scandal. Nutters are only supposed to murder people the left already despises anyway: Jews, British soldiers, Tory politicians, people with jobs.
There’s thus a presupposition embedded here that Mair’s Brexit-y crime (yes, we spotted that) was exceptionally bad. He wasn’t a Muslim legitimately murdering commuters, or a Hamas terrorist murdering Jews; no such person gets a handwringing Kester essay trying to fathom the nature of their evil. No, his real crime was worse than that: it was to be white and to hold views of other races indistinguishable from those the IRA, Muslims, Hamas, and all Kester’s other preferred terrorists hold of Britain and the west.
All those types are held to a lower standard than the white Mair, who’s especially damned because he’s white and because his victim mattered and the 7/7 killers’ didn’t. One white nutter thinking terrorism a good idea is monstrous, 600,000 UK Muslims thinking the 7/7 attacks were justified is unworthy of study.
When I read something from the left about the unique evil of the 7/7 bombers or the murderers of PC Blakelock or the black youths of London murdering each other, I’ll take this kind of bleating seriously, but until then the subtext to this effort is “only the enemies of the left should die this way”.
Classic whataboutery. The author is writing about Mair, and what might have motivated him to do what he did. He’s not writing about the motives of members of Hamas, IRA, jihadis etc, or attempting to place Mair in a league table of evil-doers.
Rubbish. He thinks Jo Cox’s murder is uniquely bad because she was a lefty. This article would simply not exist if Mair had murdered Nigel Farage. He wouldn’t have cared, and nor would Cox.
The choice of subject exposes his bigotry, so it’s wholly on point to bring this up, especially as Cox was herself a friend and supporter of anti-Semitic terrorists and Labour Party leaders.
Mr. Aspden has written a book about a black criminal he says was killed by police officers. So where’s his book about PC Blakelock, a police officer killed by black criminals?
Perhaps you should write a book about the killers of PC Blakelock. Then we can all give you 2/10 for not writing about the killer of Jo Cox.
Not really. Jo’s Corbyn-like sympathies surely played a role in her fate.
Ah, I’d forgotten that sympathy with Corbyn’s ideas merited summary execution. Thanks for putting me right.
Clearly a graduate of the Cathy Newman school of debate.
I assume you’re referring to the ‘so what you’re saying is…’ line of argument.
I don’t think I’m the Cathy Newman here. From some of your comments:
‘He thinks Jo Cox’s murder is uniquely bad because…‘
‘…the writer thinks her murder was uniquely horrible, apparently because…’.
‘Between the lines, it’s obvious that the writer is…’
‘The strong inference is that…’
My italics.
All inferences drawn, Newman-style, not from what the writer says, but from what he doesn’t say or what you think he might or should be saying. You’re also doing precisely what you accuse the writer (and Jo Cox) of – applying moral relativism when it comes to the actions of the party you sympathise with, while decrying that same relativism when displayed by those you criticise.
That’s Ok. It’s not really like that.
But given what they’ve done, support for Hamas and ISIS is clearly a form of hate speech – certainly a lot worse than that for which Maya Forstater (see this edition) was sacked. As hate speech, people are usually forgiven when they are stirred up by it.
Thanks for this comment. The left continues to hold itself above the rule of law and support terror as a political method so they will continue to be at risk that someone will push back. It should be the security services, the police and the courts but for some reason they are not willing or able. Defeating the violent proxies of leftism will take a lot more than the likes of Mair, who at least got someone who had thrown her lot in via Labour membership with terrorists Hamas, Hizbollah etc. Breivik and the NZ Mosque nutter just make the problem worse as like Labour’s proxies their victims were random and all appear to be civilians. If civil society cannot muster the strength to confront political terror from the left then terror from the right will fill the gap and make a bad situation worse.
This is the problem with these grand gestures of placing violent offenders in isolation from anyone who could understand them. It means the true nature of their motivations – and therefore if their actions are ‘indicative’ of any wider problem in society – is never properly understood.
It’s the same with the Christchurch killer – putting them beyond consideration – the NZ PM refused to even say their name – is an understandable emotional response but it turns them in to abstract characters whose motivations can be second guessed at to fit whatever narrative the authorities (or anyone else) want to push.
It would appear from the article , for instance, that Jo Coxs’ killing was not indicative of a far right rot in the UK after all, but that is how it has been continuously regurgitated.
Unless we get away from these emotive responses and grandstanding we will never be able to understand and contextualise the threat these people pose. They will always just be assumed to be ‘indicative’ of whatever point people want to make.
When I heard of this murder, which was almost immediately attributed to the far right, I despaired that it might cost us Brexit as the opinion polls were then very finely balanced. A few months I heard a prominent and active advocate for Brexit say that, in his guesstimate, the result would have been nearer 60/40 for Brexit had the murder not occurred. It seems plausible, but who really knows?
I too thought Brexit was lost when i heard about the murder.
So did the stock market. The FTSE put on, in money terms, the biggest two day celebration rally in its history.
Strangely convenient in fact. One of the odd features of this case was that he was caught in a cul-de-sac and the police called out his name. How did the police know who the suspect was?
Where is he now? Is he even alive? His family’s attempts to discover such basic information through FoI requests have been rejected.
Which, in my opinion, is quite sinister.
What a brutal act of violence against an innocent – it’s still shocking all these years later
Especially as she stood up for the victims of certain gangs who,raped underage girls with impunity.
She most certainly did not.
There is obviously more to this given the states absolute determination to make sure no one can discuss his case , motivations etc. I am surprised more people aren’t talking about this.
Don’t we know enough about this man? Criminology has its proper uses but so often ‘criminologists’ seem to be in the business of titillation too. I had to force myself to finish reading this.
It is instructive that the comment on here receiving the most green thumbs ups so far, focuses more on the supposed selectivity of the Left, rather than the wretched subject himself. Extraordinary
I am on the ‘left/centre’. There are no excuses for any acts of terrorism or murder.
As the writer says, using the so-called ‘bike lock theory’, the febrile atmosphere around the EU Referendum campaign provided one of the ‘numbers’ to release the ‘lock’.
I sense the accounts given here of what Jo Cox was actually like probably come as a total surprise to you.
Her views were utterly abhorrent to any normal person, but the lunacy and hatred of the left have now gone so far that her being a Corbyn-, ISIL- and Muslim-paedophile-rape-gang-supporter strike you as nothing out of the ordinary; all perfectly acceptable left-wing positions.
As a result, the author – and I guess you – think there’s something uniquely awful about some nutter objecting so much to this that he murdered her. It’s as though it’s somehow in bad taste for these matters to be brought up. These rightie loonies must be especially wicked to murder such a saint.
Get the beam out of your eye.
She’s an extreme leftie so she desserved to die did she? That’s a repulsive argument Jon.
She was an MP for Batley and Spen – meaning I’m certain she wasn’t leading some leftist Marxist Stalinist policy of killing and gulaging. You can’t hold her responsible for weaknesses in leftist arguments.
You sound like you condone killing people because of their political ideology.
I don’t think he sounds like that at all but a lot of left sympathisers sound like THEY condone killing of people who disagree with them. Israelis, for example.
Read The Forgotten Rachels by Tom Gross.
No, that’s not what I said. I pointed out that the writer thinks her murder was uniquely horrible, apparently because – very unusually – it was done by some nutter who appears to have sympathies with the extreme right.
Jo Cox was herself, however, an extreme left-wing nutter and sympathiser / supporter of causes who murder on a much more prolific scale, and who choose their victims either by race, or randomly, or simply because they are easy to murder.
The idea that the murder of one such extremist by another was somehow so much worse than murders of innocents by left-wing or Islamofascist criminals that it needs a special article all about it is, therefore, moral incompetence on a breathtaking scale. Between the lines, it’s obvious that the writer is flabbergasted that his own side, rather than his enemies, might be at risk of murder by vicious loonies.
The author is a crime writer, trying to make sense of the insane murderer, Thomas Mair. He is not overly interested in the innocent victim, Jo Cox.
The rest of the comment seems to be saying she ‘had it coming to her’ because she was a Corbyn supporter, ‘OK’ with ISIS, Muslim paedophiles etc. Alarming monstrous skewed ‘logic’ in itself.
With regards ‘eyes’ and ‘beams’. What?
I ticked the thumbs down, because one really oughtn’t speak ill of the dead. I do, however want to thank you for calling the most recent pack of Sunni jihadis to plague the Middle East, “Daesh”. First it really bothers them as it is a slur in Arabic, and second I hate their having ruined the use of Isis in things really referring to the river through Oxford or the Babylonian goddess of wisdom. (It isn’t even an acronym for a good translation from the Arabic. ISIL is better since “al Sham” is not Syria, but the Levant.
A poor essay, I’m afraid, with a click-bait type headline. Sorry, but that’s how I see it. There are examples of rational and caring people who kill others. For example, war, or self-defence. Or the man (Princeps) who assassinated the Arch-Duke back in 1913 (he did it for cold, ‘reasonable’ reasons but was otherwise – by all accounts – a normal person). I’m afraid this murderer of Jo Cox falls into the much much larger category of nutters. Now, you can obsess and analyse all you want but at the end of the day he (or she) are just plain odd – and dangerous. Who they eventually fixate on is – well – terribly bad luck for the person chosen, and that’s it. So given that, any ‘analysis’ which explores the motivation of the murderer and the background and context of the victim is at best pointless and at worst doing a disservice to the victim. That latter consideration should have given the editor pause before he accepted this article.
So it was a motiveless killing then? I for one, after reading this article, have no idea what his true motives were.
Putting this guy down as a far right nutter who murdered an innocent MP over Brexit never really convinced me.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but the Syria/Russia angle bothers me. Amongst her many other saintly causes, Jo Cox was a known supporter of the White Helmets – the civilian rescue workers in Syria.
Many on the far-right as well as the far-left consider the White Helmets some kind of western proxy, not only trying to destabilise the Assad regime, but also aid Isis and any other Islamist groups operating in the country.
I’d recommend the podcast ‘Intrigue’ which details a lot of this.
“Putting this guy down as a far right nutter” – how about just nutter?
Except the judge basically called him a far-right nutter. It is in the article.
She also opposed the bombing of Syria because it wasn’t Assad who was being bombed. She was actually trying to protect ISIL, who she didn’t think should be bombed if he weren’t.
This is, of course, a totally incoherent position: she wanted us to attack both sides. Either she thought there was somehow a way this would cause both sides to lose, or she wanted Assad attacked so he would lose and ISIL would win. My money’s on the second.
This doesn’t require a Russian conspiracy; it just requires her to have been callous, anti-white and rather stupid. The probability that all these were so is lent support by the fact that she went off on one, when she won her seat, about how great multiculturalism was, while Asian paedophile gangs were raping white children in her own constituency.
I normally hate the phrase “victim blaming” but why oh why are you justifying the murder of Jo Cox? Given his library of far right literature, it’s not unreasonable to cite Mair’s politics as motivation. Though maybe, as Michael Smith said, he’s just a nutter and his politics had nothing to do with his choice of victim here.
Learn to read. I am not “justifying the murder of Jo Cox”. I am questioning why the writer thinks it was uniquely bad compared to the hundreds of other political murders we have seen in recent times.
The strong inference is that it was uniquely bad because it was of someone on the extreme left by someone on the right. Murders by people on the left or whom the left supports – Hamas, ISIL, Hezbollah, the IRA – are fine and dandy. We don’t need any articles about the victims of those. But we can’t have any left wing loonies being murdered or what’s the world coming to?
So far as the left is concerned, there are those the perpetrators that deserves every ounce of vilification that the left can summon, and indeed who presents the opportunity to vilify by association, however tenuous, their political enemies; the present article being a case in point
And then there those perpetrators about whom they are remarkably silent and whose victims need to be be quickly and quietly forgotten. I give you the Asian rape gangs and Kriss Donald
The most chilling part of this story is this section: Mair’s guilt and motivation was never in question. In his sentencing remarks, the judge said: “There is no doubt that this murder was done for the purpose of advancing a political, racial and ideological cause namely that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism most associated with Nazism and its modern forms.”
Surely in any case, there must always be some doubt?
As John Major said, time to understand a little less and punish a little more…
Well, I would like to understand who put him up to it, but I can understand why the authorities might prefer that to remain unknown.
Yes, closed mind for closed-mind’s sake it seems, or a cover-up.
The thrust of the article is that nobody put him up to it, he is an ill loner
That may be the direction in which the writer wishes to take us, but what the words say is that we shall never be permitted to learn the truth.
Idiotic remark – vastly improved by further comments below
So why was this raised then? Are your reading comprehension skills maybe not up to much?
Go on, have at it: what was being slyly hinted at by
given that the remainder of the piece dedicates itself to proving that he was not “a mentally-ill loner”?
I would like to know how the police knew who he was by name and why Mair wasn’t running away because he walked into a cul-de-sac.
Could Mair be punished any more without reintroducing the death penalty?
Quoting anything John Major says usually makes me think the opposite must be true. For a person to behave in this appalling way must mean that they are mentally ill, and the more we can work out what the causes and cures might be, the better.
Whether a crime writer is the best person for such a task I very much doubt; I can quite understand that the prison authorities, trying a measure of cure and rehabilitation, would certainly not want an amateur intervening in their process to get a dramatic story that might help sell a book.
Well, yes, but Jo Cox was a selectively-educated opponent of selective education, an advocate of sex equality who got her seat off an all-women shortlist, a Corbyn nominator and supporter of Labour Friends of Palestine (i.e. of Hamas and Hezbollah), an opponent of bombing ISIS in Syria, and completely bought in to the wonders of multiculturalism.
It says much that views as extreme as hers are so unremarkable in the current Labour party that she can be deified as though she were a worthy and completely uncontroversial figure. The fact is that she was just as much a nutter as Corbyn. Had Mair been a Muslim who murdered a white Conservative politician, she would certainly have had nothing to say, nor any regret to express on the matter.
All political murder is reprehensible but it isn’t automatically worse when people of the left are those getting murdered. There is no natural order of political murder that says it can only happen to innocents and the right.
Cox was working on an “Islamophobia” report when she was killed whilst remaining completely silent on the grooming and rape of young white working class girls by Muslim men in her constituency.
There have been a series of court cases involving perpetrators from Batley and other Kirklees constitutiences in the last few years and its difficult to believe that Cox wasn’t aware to some extent of what was going on.
One of which was headlines (with the ‘celebrity squares’ pictures of all ‘Asian’ men on the front page of the local rag) that week.
That more isn’t made of this is the answer to why Mair is isolated from communication. That and the coordinated (and obvious) attempt to make it about Brexit suggests it was nothing other than ‘arranged’.
Well, after working for Oxfam for 20 years, she should have been sensitised to the problem.