You’re giving the rioters a lot of credit assuming that they only did what they did because they were angry. You’re way more naive than I thought.

3 hours ago, Liam sota said:

Of course it’s harder to extinguish a fire once it has started. And yeah they were right, they covered up vital information.

What information was „covered up“? That the accused had been researching terrorism online?

That isn’t something that is known from minute zero. For one thing they have to identify the suspect first and then there’s judicial and evidentiary process to be followed to ensure anything found is admissible in a court of law. Search warrants need to be obtained and executed, telecoms companies have to be subpoenaed and it takes time to gather the records to hand over and then someone has to review them in detail. This isn’t a crime drama on the BBC, that shit takes more than 3 minutes to do

It’s all in the article. Cheshire police stated they were told not to reveal lots of info. They found ricin after searching his house but this wasn’t revealed for many months after, same with the Al Qaeda manual.

And what good would the public have done with information like that anyway? It was too late to stop the stabbings by that time and knowing that or not is not an excuse to set fire to hotels.

You seem to want to be an apologist for racist morons. The facts that were given early on-he was British born-didn’t deter them for going after all the non white people they could find.

The authorities appear to have been doing their job, as they seem to in any case. There are things that need looking at. The Prevent system obviously needs looking at but in terms of how things were handled after the incident, I can’t see your view, I’m afraid.

57 minutes ago, Liam sota said:

It’s all in the article. Cheshire police stated they were told not to reveal lots of info. They found ricin after searching his house but this wasn’t revealed for many months after, same with the Al Qaeda manual.

Cheshire police have stated no such thing. They’re not even involved.

You’re yet to say what the revelation that Ricin or the Manual existed would have done. Does that impact the defendants right to a fair trial? Given that when this was discovered racist thugs were already setting hotels on fire do you think this would have defused that environment or just thrown a tanker ship full of petrol onto the fire?

20 minutes ago, T Boy said:

And what good would the public have done with information like that anyway? It was too late to stop the stabbings by that time and knowing that or not is not an excuse to set fire to hotels.

You seem to want to be an apologist for racist morons. The facts that were given early on-he was British born-didn’t deter them for going after all the non white people they could find.

The authorities appear to have been doing their job, as they seem to in any case. There are things that need looking at. The Prevent system obviously needs looking at but in terms of how things were handled after the incident, I can’t see your view, I’m afraid.

It seems we’re going round in circles since you end up asking questions that have already been answered.

Everything should have been revealed as soon as possible. That he was known to authorities. His mugshot. His full identity.

The fact he had ricin and an Al Qaeda manual also should have been released much earlier for a full picture.

Your repeated assumption is that it would have made no difference, I can’t rerun it to verify, I and many others including those writing the report think it would have. The information released was described as ‘inadequate’

This fuelled misinformation and allowed agendas to flourish, people got cooked up in a frenzy and then you have all kinds of groups and people exploiting that and random others joining in.

I’m afraid to simply dismiss it away that these people are just racist morons or that nothing would have changed anyway is the height of ignorance and defies all historical patterns and psychological evidence.

4 minutes ago, Silas said:

Cheshire police have stated no such thing. They’re not even involved.

You’re yet to say what the revelation that Ricin or the Manual existed would have done. Does that impact the defendants right to a fair trial? Given that when this was discovered racist thugs were already setting hotels on fire do you think this would have defused that environment or just thrown a tanker ship full of petrol onto the fire?

Merseyside police - https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2025-02-25/police-boss-wanted-to-release-southport-killers-religion-to-stop-disinformation

I’m sure the information vacuum played a major role in the whole affair yes so your phrasing is a little obtuse since ultimately the point was many suspected a cover up and my point was they covered up those two things among others hence they were right.

Edited February 27Feb 27 by Liam sota

And what of us that weren’t whipped into a violent frenzy? You know, the majority of us? What of the people who came out in Cardiff to celebrate love and diversity in such great numbers the rioters didn’t bother? This happened elsewhere in the UK too if I recall.

The idea that people who violent and riotous just needed the facts and they’d have stayed at home is bullshit and this is your ignorance showing, not mine.

If people are fed up, they could have protested peacefully. They tried to after Sarah Everard, the BLM protests were largely peaceful and even your example of London 2011 began as a peaceful protest that opportunists jumped on for riots.

You’re annoyed with the wrong people. A report isn’t going to sway my opinion on this.

10 minutes ago, Liam sota said:

Merseyside police - https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2025-02-25/police-boss-wanted-to-release-southport-killers-religion-to-stop-disinformation

I’m sure the information vacuum played a major role in the whole affair yes so your phrasing is a little obtuse since ultimately the point was many suspected a cover up and my point was they covered up those two things among others hence they were right.

But that’s my original point, this lot shot off at 100mph screaming cover up before the police even had the information at hand. How can they be right about a cover up when at the time they were screaming about it the police didn’t even know about things like the ricin???? You can’t cover up something that isn’t known. That’s like a pretty basic concept. As I said they were burning down hotels as the police were finding out this information, so what good would it have done to release it at this point? Your assessment relies upon two things, first the concept of perfect information (that being that everyone as all the information available to them at the same time immediately and doesn’t allow for the discovery of evidence) and second that the evidence was known to the police before the riot hit the point of no return

11 minutes ago, Silas said:

But that’s my original point, this lot shot off at 100mph screaming cover up before the police even had the information at hand. How can they be right about a cover up when at the time they were screaming about it the police didn’t even know about things like the ricin???? You can’t cover up something that isn’t known. That’s like a pretty basic concept. As I said they were burning down hotels as the police were finding out this information, so what good would it have done to release it at this point? Your assessment relies upon two things, first the concept of perfect information (that being that everyone as all the information available to them at the same time immediately and doesn’t allow for the discovery of evidence) and second that the evidence was known to the police before the riot hit the point of no return

I’m not sure about the timeline. To my knowledge they found the ricin less than 24 hours after the attack and subsequently had to stop searching his house.

The Al Qaeda manual they found when they could re-enter the house three days after that

I’m pretty sure they thought the less information they release the better as it wouldn’t inflame tensions when it had the opposite effect. I’m not sure why there is such hostility to this obvious conclusion.

Edited February 27Feb 27 by Liam sota

There isn’t hostility, we just don’t think it’d have changed anything.

Surely knowing there were terror links would have made the bigots riot even more? Is that not a more obvious conclusion?

Edited February 27Feb 27 by T Boy

I fundamentally don't understand the point Liam is trying to make.

Why should the general public know detailed facts from ANY ongoing criminal investigation in real-time unless it is a warning of a dangerous person at large or an appeal for witnesses?

"Because they'll speculate and riot" is just post-hoc justification and excusal of the racist riots we had and has never before been seen in any similar case. Criminal investigations happen every day and detailed info is never released to the public in real time, and somehow people aren't spotted rioting every day over them.

Im amazed at the simplistic takes given we’ve just had a review that specific outlines the necessity

12 minutes ago, Liam sota said:

Im amazed at the simplistic takes given we’ve just had a review that specific outlines the necessity

Clearly I’m a very simple person as I have read the article you posted more than once and still can’t see where you’re coming from.

Just in case there are more idiots like me reading the thread being simple, how about you explain without saying ‘there’s a report’, how giving information straight away (even info they might not have had yet) would have stopped racists from rioting. Proper lay man’s terms please, I’m clearly a very unintelligent person.

2 minutes ago, T Boy said:

Clearly I’m a very simple person as I have read the article you posted more than once and still can’t see where you’re coming from.

Just in case there are more idiots like me reading the thread being simple, how about you explain without saying ‘there’s a report’, how giving information straight away (even info they might not have had yet) would have stopped racists from rioting. Proper lay man’s terms please, I’m clearly a very unintelligent person.

Well tell me how is it millions of people can understand this perspective including various well established people who wrote this report but it is completely irrational to you? What’s not clicking?

Riots are not a common thing. We’ve seen three really in the UK. 2011 and this one being the most recent. Between that time there have been numerous terror attacks and various other inflammatory stories or incidents. So why do you talk like riots are an inevitable thing?

Edited February 27Feb 27 by Liam sota

I feel we're all talking in circles here and missing the point of what happened here, emotionally getting involved in one side or the other.

As they often do, misinformation spreaders and right-wing garbage opportunistically seized upon this attack to spread their useful fearmongering and hate, and because of the desperately sad circumstances this was very effective as a 'they're coming for your children too' fear, which happened to be enough to light the match on a few riots, which then spiralled with copycats and thankfully were met with even greater peace marches after a short while, it was nowhere near as widespread or contentious as 2011, the riots were pretty swiftly condemned and put down, with people who incited punished as they should be.

Unrelated to the public response, there's some contention on the timeline of the police releasing information, I don't care enough to go into the specifics of what was known at one point or another, the only really important point was the non-refutation of the fake Islamic name that was being circulated by those misinformation spreaders, the rest is an ongoing case which should be reported on only as much as it won't disrupt an ongoing investigation. The delay on the name probably came about because the perpetrator was techinically a minor and so his identity couldn't be released, and you can't really start legislating for 'ignore the law in these circumstances because this minor committed a really serious crime', laws have to be objective-based and most of the time this is a good law to have,

The things found in the flat led to a separate investigation and, ultimately, further charges. We, rightly, have laws in place restricting what can be reported before a trial.

39 minutes ago, Suedehead2 said:

The things found in the flat led to a separate investigation and, ultimately, further charges. We, rightly, have laws in place restricting what can be reported before a trial.

All of that was reported before the trial. There was clearly no need to withhold it.

And so a young girl was allegedly assaulted in Ballymena and two Romanian young persons are in court because of it.

In response there has been riots over immigration in the town over the past two nights with 15 police injured.

Let’s hope this doesn’t spread to the UK.