999tigger Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 They dont charge based on profiling, they charge on the basis of what evidence they have and are likely to get a conviction with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 They dont charge based on profiling, they charge on the basis of what evidence they have and are likely to get a conviction with. No one has said they charge on profiling which makes your comment irrelevant . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 My reasoning is because of stereotyping , this incident wasn't considered a possible terrorist incident . Your so called reasoning is deficient. How on earth do you know whether they considered the possibility of it being a terrorist incident or not. They will have run through the options and considered the evidence, then based their decisions on that. Evidence and understanding what the legal requirements are for any given crime are essential in deciding what to charge. Thats what the main part of the thread was about, why charge one crime and not another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidley Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 By Muslim looking I mean showing signs of being a Muslim for eg beard, clothing etc. ---------- Post added 19-12-2015 at 21:52 ---------- Oh Dear, Father Christmas is not delivering no parcels to my house this Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Your so called reasoning is deficient. How on earth do you know whether they considered the possibility of it being a terrorist incident or not. They will have run through the options and considered the evidence, then based their decisions on that. Evidence and understanding what the legal requirements are for any given crime are essential in deciding what to charge. Thats what the main part of the thread was about, why charge one crime and not another. You are missing the point which is before the incident was fully investigated and the suspect identified neither the Police or the media mentioned terrorism because the suspect did not fit into the stereotype of a Muslim even though the Police said the device had "the potential to cause serious injury if it had exploded " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 You are missing the point which is before the incident was fully investigated and the suspect identified neither the Police or the media mentioned terrorism because the suspect did not fit into the stereotype of a Muslim even though the Police said the device had "the potential to cause serious injury if it had exploded " A point that would have validity if there were known groups of trainspotter live with their mum sorts unleashing terrorist chaos by setting fire to closet roll in preston khazis. Loppy loser seemed most likely explanation in this case and will likely prove to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 (edited) I'm no expert on these things but terrorism isn't the first thing that comes into my mind when an asthma inhaler, firelighter, matches and toilet paper is found on fire in a toilet. There's probably a discussion without tea and biscuits in the Chief Constable's office tomorrow for the officer that called the bomb squad instead of the fire brigade. Edited December 20, 2015 by Eric Arthur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 You are missing the point which is before the incident was fully investigated and the suspect identified neither the Police or the media mentioned terrorism because the suspect did not fit into the stereotype of a Muslim even though the Police said the device had "the potential to cause serious injury if it had exploded " The police didnt mention it presumably because they had no evidence to suggest it was terrorism i.e politically, racially or ideologically related. They would consider it and even now would have an open mind as they investigate his background. They dont have to mention everything to the media. If the police say arson, then the media will find it hard to say otherwise as they dont have the evidence and arent conducting the investigation. Any fire can be said to have the potential to cause serious injury if it spreads and gets a hold. Any pressurised container/ aerosol/ sealed can could cause serious injury if subjected to heat and it explodes. It consisted of a firelighter, some toilet paper and an inhaler not really the weapon of your destructive terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 A terror swan can break a person's arm with its wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 The police didnt mention it presumably because they had no evidence to suggest it was terrorism i.e politically, racially or ideologically related. They would consider it and even now would have an open mind as they investigate his background. They dont have to mention everything to the media. If the police say arson, then the media will find it hard to say otherwise as they dont have the evidence and arent conducting the investigation. Any fire can be said to have the potential to cause serious injury if it spreads and gets a hold. Any pressurised container/ aerosol/ sealed can could cause serious injury if subjected to heat and it explodes. It consisted of a firelighter, some toilet paper and an inhaler not really the weapon of your destructive terrorist. Point well made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts