• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Jo Cox Attack: False Flag?

I agree it should not be linked to Brexit, but the media is doing this. Not just in the UK - European papers reported on "bloody Brexit" and the EU Commissioner for migration stated that Cox was murdered because of her support for the EU.

No one knows what motivated the killer and I'm still keen to know who the other guy with injuries was - if you recall the original reports stated that she had got in the middle of an argument between her attacker and another man. We do know that Mair had sought emergency help at a mental health centre the day before and been turned away. The rush to ascribe political motivations to the attack seems premature - and could of course prejudice any trial - but attempts to link it to Leave are disgraceful IMO.


.

I really believe there is enough evidence to suggest a political motive. If it had been a murder carried out by a Muslim who had documented Islamist links and appeared on Islamist websites attending Islamist protests then I doubt if you would be saying there were no political/ideological motivations.
 
I really believe there is enough evidence to suggest a political motive. If it had been a murder carried out by a Muslim who had documented Islamist links and appeared on Islamist websites attending Islamist protests then I doubt if you would be saying there were no political/ideological motivations.

Yeah - the more that comes out the more I think you're probably right that there was a political motive. The guy had mental health issues but there is clearly a Venn diagram to be drawn where the intersection between "terrorist" and "mental health patient" is substantial.
 
I think giving his name in court as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" ought to put an end to any claims of either a government conspiracy to smear the leave campaign or any doubts that he had current debates about immigration and Europe in his head, whatever his mental state.

Ought to, but won't.
 
The very title of this thread is wrong, suggesting that this murder is a 'False Flag attack' without any evidence at all.
What evidence there is suggests the killer is a loner with extreme views and mental problems. He may have had a political motive of sorts, but his choice of victim does not make clear what that motive was.
 
The very title of this thread is wrong, suggesting that this murder is a 'False Flag attack' without any evidence at all.
What evidence there is suggests the killer is a loner with extreme views and mental problems. He may have had a political motive of sorts, but his choice of victim does not make clear what that motive was.

Lets not forget the brave pensioner.

Hero pensioner, 77, was stabbed in liver as he tried to save life of Jo Cox

“It does not surprise me that when people were running one way, he was going the other way to help. That is typical of him, he is old school”

A hero pensioner was stabbed in the liver – the blow narrowly missing his heart – as he tried to save Jo Cox.

Bernard Kenny, 77, was meeting his wife, parked outside the library, when he saw the MP being attacked.

He immediately ran to her aid, risking his own life to tackle the maniac gunman.

But as Jo lay bleeding to death, Mr Kenny was set upon, bundled to the ground and stabbed in the stomach as he tried to defend her.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hero-pensioner-77-stabbed-liver-8222043#ICID=sharebar_twitter


 
Yes, the Brexit brigade do seem to have become twitchily paranoiac of late - and ironically it might have partly been this mentality that (along with mental health issues) motivated the gun attack in the first place.

Not one of my fellow liberal traitors on this site have suggested that the unfortunate incident was a direct result of the Brexit campaign and, indeed, the most Pro-European newspaper in Britain - The Independent- has a headline, in its current on-line issue, which says something like `Brexit should not be blamed for the shooting` - or something like that.

I have a sane-to-the-point of dullness friend who supports Brexit and he recently shared( and this was well before the shooting of Jo Cox), on my Facebook page, a link from a well known notorious conspiracy theory site in order to win me over. This development is notable because this acquaintance has demonstrated no prior fortean-type preoccupations - none of my real world friends do, (which is why I come to this site!)

This shooting incident is odd simply because it is not the sort of thing which usually happens in the UK. For those tempted by False Flag explanations of it I would like to ask: What type of gun shooting would it have to be in order for it to satisfy your criteria of a non-suspicious real event (and the same question can extend to: night club massacres, planes being driven into skyscrapers, tube attacks, etc). This often stops people in their tracks - provided, that is, they have the intelligence to get what the question is driving at.

Indeed, if the tentacles of the European conspiracy are so long then why was Cameron `allowed` to hold a referendum on the matter in the first place? He was under no obligation to do so - and his promise that he would was made to gain electoral desirability.

After all, there are plenty of issues on which people feel strongly which never get put before a plebiscite in this way: whether or not we should restore the death penalty, or (one close to my heart) whether or not we need a monarchy, to name but two.

As to why the incident is getting such coverage and such a response - well my own emphasis would lie very much on the fact that it involved a young woman, and a reasonably photogenic one at that.Had it been your more typical middle aged besuited male type of politician then I fear the response might have been just a little more muted.

And if Bremain do win in the end then this won't owe to this shocking news news, but rather to the conservatism and stick-with-what-you-know mentality of the British electorate. Whilst I would welcome this outcome I would get little succour from the cause of it - because it's the same thing which keeps out radical reform governments too.
 
After all, there are plenty of issues on which people feel strongly which never get put before a plebiscite in this way: whether or not we should restore the death penalty, or (one close to my heart) whether or not we need a monarchy, to name but two.
The trouble is - who then decides? Who decides who knows best for us plebs? Speaking as a pleb, I don't want any individual or oligarchy deciding what's best for me. What gives anyone that right?
 
The trouble is - who then decides? Who decides who knows best for us plebs? Speaking as a pleb, I don't want any individual or oligarchy deciding what's best for me. What gives anyone that right?

The UK, like the RoI, is a Parliamentary Democracy. So the Parliaments decide.

I don't always like the results but you can't have a referendum on every law.

On the back of some horrific murder and hysteria driven by tabloids out to increase circulation, I'm sure a Capital Punishment Referendum would pass.

Regardless of the number of people who have been shown to be innocent of crimes they were convicted of.
 
So whether the alledged murderer made the comments suggested before the attack, or not, his reply to being asked his name in court would heavily imply that he did. Unless it was faked by them.
 
The trouble is - who then decides? Who decides who knows best for us plebs? Speaking as a pleb, I don't want any individual or oligarchy deciding what's best for me. What gives anyone that right?

I think that major constitutional issues should be subject to referenda. Whether to join the EU would be one. If there was a serious groundswell of republican sentiment then I think the monarchy should also fall into that category. Issues like the death penalty - no, that's what our elected representatives are for. I wouldn't want to see a Swiss system here.

Not one of my fellow liberal traitors on this site have suggested that the unfortunate incident was a direct result of the Brexit campaign and, indeed, the most Pro-European newspaper in Britain - The Independent- has a headline, in its current on-line issue, which says something like `Brexit should not be blamed for the shooting` - or something like that.

Indeed, if the tentacles of the European conspiracy are so long then why was Cameron `allowed` to hold a referendum on the matter in the first place? He was under no obligation to do so - and his promise that he would was made to gain electoral desirability.

The Independent may not have done, but the Guardian certainly has made a direct link.

Cameron never wanted the referendum. He promised it to head off UKIP at the pass and thought he wouldn't have to see it through as he wouldn't have an absolute majority.

Anyway - we'll see what happens next week. If it goes ahead at all.
 
The UK, like the RoI, is a Parliamentary Democracy. So the Parliaments decide.

But the UK Parliament is not the will of the people. It's the will of an oligarchy who are in a position to run for office and at the present time come from an overwhelmingly privileged background. They are for the most part not interested in or have any appreciation of the will of the majority or in fact the welfare of them.

Plebiscite's are the will of the people by definition.

I don't always like the results but you can't have a referendum on every law.

I respectfully disagree. We're very nearly at the point where that's entirely possible using current technology. I grant you some silly decisions may result initially, but people learn quickly.

On the back of some horrific murder and hysteria driven by tabloids out to increase circulation, I'm sure a Capital Punishment Referendum would pass.

What if it did? If that's what the majority want, why is that wrong? You're assuming there is some absolute moral code above and beyond the will of the people.

If you took a plebiscite for "life sentences for murder meaning 'whole life' " I suspect it would get in by a mile. Yet that's not what is currently happening. Many feel that's unjust to the victims and their families and reduce the value of human life.

The rule of authority is dependent on the majority believing that authority is representing their values and morals, in short it's a permission granted by the majority to the authority. I suggest we're at the point where many do not believe the ruling authority are aligned with common values of morality and decency. Desperate behind the scenes attempts to privatise the NHS for example. Tax avoidance with schemes only the very wealthy can access for another.

Regardless of the number of people who have been shown to be innocent of crimes they were convicted of.

This is a process of law issue, not a reason to change punishment regimes. Much needs be done in this regard with or without capital punishment 'on the table'.
 
But the UK Parliament is not the will of the people. It's the will of an oligarchy who are in a position to run for office and at the present time come from an overwhelmingly privileged background. They are for the most part not interested in or have any appreciation of the will of the majority or in fact the welfare of them.

Plebiscite's are the will of the people by definition.



I respectfully disagree. We're very nearly at the point where that's entirely possible using current technology. I grant you some silly decisions may result initially, but people learn quickly.

I was actually referring to General Elections. Clumsily phrased by me.


What if it did? If that's what the majority want, why is that wrong? You're assuming there is some absolute moral code above and beyond the will of the people.

If you took a plebiscite for "life sentences for murder meaning 'whole life' " I suspect it would get in by a mile. Yet that's not what is currently happening. Many feel that's unjust to the victims and their families and reduce the value of human life.

Its wrong because many innocent people would have been executed if Capital Punishment had existed over the past 50 years


This is a process of law issue, not a reason to change punishment regimes. Much needs be done in this regard with or without capital punishment 'on the table'.

How can you prevent wrongful executions? Look at http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/yet-another-miscarriage-of-justice.6533/#post-134057 "Everyone knew" they were gulty. In some cases only being cleared decades later.

Tabloids howled for a return of Capital Punishment in many of these cases.
 
The very title of this thread is wrong, suggesting that this murder is a 'False Flag attack' without any evidence at all.
What evidence there is suggests the killer is a loner with extreme views and mental problems. He may have had a political motive of sorts, but his choice of victim does not make clear what that motive was.

It was a bit of a rushed title - just combining the attack and the false flag conspiracy theories that inevitably cropped up immediately.

Can a mod change it to something more neutral like "Jo Cox"?
 
We're getting massively off topic but seeing as we are, I may as well wade in!

I'm not in favour of a return to capital punishment primarily because of the risk of wrongful conviction. If there was zero doubt of the person's guilt I don't think I would object for particularly heinous crimes - serial killers and the like.

If we were to have a referendum on capital punishment I actually don't think we would vote to return it.
 
We're getting massively off topic but seeing as we are, I may as well wade in!

I'm not in favour of a return to capital punishment primarily because of the risk of wrongful conviction. If there was zero doubt of the person's guilt I don't think I would object for particularly heinous crimes - serial killers and the like.

If we were to have a referendum on capital punishment I actually don't think we would vote to return it.

I fear that tabloids would generate sufficient hysteria to get such a referendum passed.

Even in a serial killer case someone can be fitted up. Look at the miscarriages thread, police, prosecution, forensic experts and judges have all colluded in convicting innocent people. And then further conspired to quash appeals.
 
I fear that tabloids would generate sufficient hysteria to get such a referendum passed.

Even in a serial killer case someone can be fitted up. Look at the miscarriages thread, police, prosecution, forensic experts and judges have all colluded in convicting innocent people. And then further conspired to quash appeals.

Oh yes, I agree on the wrongful conviction point.

In a hypothetical case where there was zero doubt as to guilt, though, might you ever think the death penalty appropriate?
 
Oh yes, I agree on the wrongful conviction point.

In a hypothetical case where there was zero doubt as to guilt, though, might you ever think the death penalty appropriate?

Oh, I can think of cases where it might be justified but thats me seeking revenge.

On balance, removed from emotion, I cannot agree with it.
 
Oh, I can think of cases where it might be justified but thats me seeking revenge.

On balance, removed from emotion, I cannot agree with it.

Fair enough. As I say I wouldn't support its return but I can see it being a reasonable response to a small number of particularly dreadful crimes.
 
I was actually referring to General Elections. Clumsily phrased by me.
Meh. No problem.


What if it did? If that's what the majority want, why is that wrong? You're assuming there is some absolute moral code above and beyond the will of the people.

If you took a plebiscite for "life sentences for murder meaning 'whole life' " I suspect it would get in by a mile. Yet that's not what is currently happening. Many feel that's unjust to the victims and their families and reduce the value of human life.

Its wrong because many innocent people would have been executed if Capital Punishment had existed over the past 50 years


That's not a reason to not carry it out. That's a reason to make the process watertight and then only implement in extreme cases where that can be no doubt whatsoever.

My original point though, is that if it's the will of the people to carry out capital punishment, who are you or I to say that is wrong?

How can you prevent wrongful executions? Look at http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/yet-another-miscarriage-of-justice.6533/#post-134057 "Everyone knew" they were gulty. In some cases only being cleared decades later.
Tabloids howled for a return of Capital Punishment in many of these cases.


Yes that's true. But that's doesn't mean capital punishment is the failing, rather the process by which the verdict was reached. How can you prevent wrongful executions? If I had that brief, I'd (a) insist all evidence was publicly available after a trial (b) allow and support anyone to instigate an investigation into the evidence looking specifically for any doubts (c) delay the execution for a period to allow for this.

However I'm not in favour personally (although I am in favour of whole life prison terms as that seems perfectly fair and just).

My point is: just because I personally consider capital punishment is wrong, who am I to set that view over a majority of a population who think it right and just?
 
My original point though, is that if it's the will of the people to carry out capital punishment, who are you or I to say that is wrong?

Because the will of the people isn't always right or just.

If 51% of the population voted to kill the other 49%, I think we'd be quite justified in saying it was wrong.

That is why we have such things as human rights legislation and separation between the executive and judiciary.
 
Because the will of the people isn't always right or just.

If 51% of the population voted to kill the other 49%, I think we'd be quite justified in saying it was wrong.

That is why we have such things as human rights legislation and separation between the executive and judiciary.
You saying it's wrong doesn't mean it's wrong. That's your opinion, that's all. None of us have the right to set ourselves up as the arbitrators of 'right' and 'wrong'. This is my argument. 'You' have no absolute right to determine what I do is 'wrong'. 'Says who?' in fact.

So where does you moral certainty come from? Do you believe it's the majority opinion? Or do you set yourself up over the majority as 'you know best'?
 
You saying it's wrong doesn't mean it's wrong. That's your opinion, that's all. None of us have the right to set ourselves up as the arbitrators of 'right' and 'wrong'. This is my argument. 'You' have no absolute right to determine what I do is 'wrong'. 'Says who?' in fact.

So where does you moral certainty come from? Do you believe it's the majority opinion? Or do you set yourself up over the majority as 'you know best'?

Well, I suppose ultimately it comes down to what we were discussing on the politics thread about a demos.

In the UK, even though people may have very different views on policy, there are some core values shared by the vast majority. Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, men and women should be treated equally, etc etc.

If a majority of the population - or even a non-negligible minority - no longer shared those core values then we're in serious trouble.
 
Well, I suppose ultimately it comes down to what we were discussing on the politics thread about a demos.

In the UK, even though people may have very different views on policy, there are some core values shared by the vast majority. Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, men and women should be treated equally, etc etc.

If a majority of the population - or even a non-negligible minority - no longer shared those core values then we're in serious trouble.
So, you say the majority is the authority of the moral code. So if we hold a plebiscite on capital punishment and the vote is 'yeah' then it's morally right then.
 
So, you say the majority is the authority of the moral code. So if we hold a plebiscite on capital punishment and the vote is 'yeah' then it's morally right then.

No, I'm not quite saying that. Forgive me, because I'm not sure I'm explaining it very well.

I think something like capital punishment goes in the "policy" box. You can agree with it or not and still hold the broader core values. I don't think that supporting it, or not, impacts on the general values consensus. Each person has their own moral code which sits alongside society's values. My moral code, or yours, will not align 100% with the majority viewpoint. However if the majority viewpoint becomes sufficiently distinct from our own, we may no longer feel comfortable in that society.
 
No, I'm not quite saying that. Forgive me, because I'm not sure I'm explaining it very well.
Done that myself ;)

I think something like capital punishment goes in the "policy" box. You can agree with it or not and still hold the broader core values. I don't think that supporting it, or not, impacts on the general values consensus. Each person has their own moral code which sits alongside society's values. My moral code, or yours, will not align 100% with the majority viewpoint. However if the majority viewpoint becomes sufficiently distinct from our own, we may no longer feel comfortable in that society.

That's my point. Everyone has their own moral code (and if a group or individual holds to a code that include the wiping out of those who don't see it their way we call it 'sociopathy').

You say "this is right" and I say "no it isn't'' (or in this thread 'who are you to judge?').

However to assert (e.g.) that capital punishment is 'wrong' but to likewise assert that the foundation of moral codes rest on the views of the majority are inconsistent arguments. If the majority vote (and again, as an example) that capital punishment is 'right' then by that definition, it is.

You can't really have it both ways. Either the majority consensus is the foundation of the 'right and 'wrong' or it's not. And if it is, then many more issues should be put to a plebiscite.

And if the minority doesn't agree with the 'ruling' majority on what is right, by what right do they impose their values? And based on what standards?
 
This thread is rather distasteful, don't you think? Some posters seem to be tying themselves in knots trying desperately not to see what's in front of their eyes.

And what might that be?

No one - including the thread starter - has expressed any doubt regarding Mair's guilt. That was, under the circumstances, 100% obvious from the start. Disturbingly, there are unwell people all over the world (and of all political persuasions) who fantasise about murdering celebrities and politicians of every stripe. Sometimes these fantasies turn into actual criminal violence.

Are you saying we shouldn't be discussing these events at all? The focus of the thread is simply that conspiracy theories have inevitably emerged - and almost instantly. It's a discussion about the media - traditional and social - not Ms Cox herself. I'm sure nobody has intentionally caused offence.

I really believe there is enough evidence to suggest a political motive. If it had been a murder carried out by a Muslim who had documented Islamist links and appeared on Islamist websites attending Islamist protests then I doubt if you would be saying there were no political/ideological motivations.

Yes, there does seem to be enough incontrovertible evidence for a right-wing political motive and that was always on the cards. But there wasn't on Thursday night when The Star ran with its 'Brexit Gunman' front page. It was irresponsible to slyly insinuate some connection between the Brexit campaign, mental illness, and a tendancy towards violence. It seems likely that Mair is the kind of person who could just as easily have been lead along by an extremist Christian or Muslim group, or some wacky New Age cult - and ended up preying on a quite different victim. But he didn't.

We can't fight the hate that killed Jo Cox: that hatred exists within the mind of Thomas Mair.

On your second point Ramon, you are quite correct - the connection would be obvious. But again, membership of Britain First and Eurosceptiscism are not the same thing. If a jewish gunman with pro-Bremain leanings attacked and killed Nigel Farage I would not consider it acceptable for newspapers to go with headlines such as "UKIP Leader mown down by insane Jew'. Or, for that matter 'Bremain Nutcase'.
 
Last edited:
All this 'false flag' and 'crisis actor' foaming-at-the-mouth nonsense that the internet seems to foster is getting out of hand.

The only bizarre thing, to me, about this awful murderous attack was the sense of 'synchronicity' that struck after hearing days previously about the assassination of American singer Christina Grimmie by another mentally ill man.
 
In one way the mainstream media in general have been quite level-headed: I'd been expecting the no doubt hopelessly overstretched NHS mental health services in the area to come in for criticism for 'not doing enough'. Haven't seen any signs of this so far.
 
Yes, there does seem to be enough evidence for a right-wing political motive and that was always on the cards. But there wasn't on Thursday night when The Star ran with its 'Brexit Gunman' front page. It was irresponsible to slyly insinuate some connection between the Brexit campaign, mental illness, and a tendancy towards violence. It seems likely that Mair is the kind of person who could just as easily have been lead along by an extremist Christian or Muslim group, or some wacky New Age cult - and ended up preying on a quite different victim. But he didn't.

We can't fight the hate that killed Jo Cox: that hatred exists within the mind of Thomas Mair.

I have posted here many comments saying that it had nothing to do with Brexit. Raise that with the Star, not me.


It seems to me that Mair had specifically chosen a certain type of hate and adhered to it for decades.

On your second point Ramon, you are quite correct - the connection would be obvious. But again, membership of Britain First and Eurosceptiscism are not the same thing. If a jewish gunman with pro-Bremain leanings attacked and killed Nigel Farage I would not consider it acceptable for newspapers to go with headlines such as "UKIP Leader mown down by insane Jew'. Or, for that matter 'Bremain Nutcase'.

Again, don't erect men of straw to knock down.

I didn't say that Britain First and Euroscepticism are the same thing. In about six different posts I made the opposite point.

Why address these points to me?
 
Back
Top