Terror attack in Manchester? (3 Viewers)

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

Did it create a sense of terror in Manchester? Were people in the local area who heard/seen/witnessed it scared for their own/other peoples lives?

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Undoubtedly, and i take your point, but that is NOT the definition of "terrorism" (according to the Terrorism Act 2000, which should be the proper definition). That requires that the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racist or ideological cause. Not just because you have a mental health disorder.

 

---

[David O'Day]

Did it create a sense of terror in Manchester? Were people in the local area who heard/seen/witnessed it scared for their own/other peoples lives?

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

OSB has explained this better than I could

 

[pastythegreat]

Undoubtedly, and i take your point, but that is NOT the definition of "terrorism" (according to the Terrorism Act 2000, which should be the proper definition). That requires that the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racist or ideological cause. Not just because you have a mental health disorder.

Or this?

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[David O'Day]

Or this?

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

That's US law not UK law and the section above states it has to be politically motivated

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

That's US law not UK law and the section above states it has to be politically motivated

I think the key word is "and" at the end of the first bullet point. That is to say, while i agree about the "reaching wider spectrum, etc", it must also include political motivation.
As i said earlier, I really do take your point about the guy terrorising people, but for it to be a "terrorist act" (as the Counter Terrorism Unit stated), he had to be more that just attacking people at random. Hopefully if they find no evidence of political motivation, they will say so, and say it wasn't an act of terrorism, rather than just leaving it "out there".

 

[dancers lance]

Well as the person has now been detained under the mental health act and the GMP have said they haven't yet found any racial, religious or political motivation it's wrong to call it a terror attack.

In fairness the hallmarks are not mutually exclusive

Exactly, but the OP failed to include that in his rather expressed, disingenuous and agenda driven explanation of the situation, which was my point entirely. He could have easily said "this has the hallmarks of a mentally ill person, or a terrorist or both" but he didn't, he chose his path and it's bullshit.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Fernando is the OP

 

[fellatio_Martinez]

Is something going down in Manchester again?

 

[fernandopartridge]

 

[fernandopartridge]

I was in the Arndale a couple of weeks back on a Friday and loads of youths were charged out of there by the police.

Then last week the stabbings, this week this.

 

[dancers lance]

Well as the person has now been detained under the mental health act and the GMP have said they haven't yet found any racial, religious or political motivation it's wrong to call it a terror attack.

I never said it was, but you had already decided I couldn't be (given the hallmarks) because you are an ideologue, an adherent of your chosen agenda, a twat. I can't stand middle class white apologists. How was your gap year?