Jo Cox MP, shot dead

[NorfolkWomble]

Oh so your violence is acceptable.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Fighting nazi thugs in defence of peaceful activists.

You're seriously going to attempt to justify that sort of thing?

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Oh so your violence is acceptable.

Yup

 

[Aber gas]

You're seriously going to attempt to justify that sort of thing?

No, but you're being disingenuous by citing those examples as being somehow similar to the events yesterday. I find that a bit pathetic really.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

No, but you're being disingenuous by citing those examples as being somehow similar to the events yesterday. I find that a bit pathetic really.

I cited them as examples because they're isolated incidents of random nutters from random ideologies committing heinous acts in the name of their beliefs, without being indicative of any larger trend. They're the same in all the ways that matter with regard to that point. Whether one was a member of a group or another had motives you think are more justifiable is neither here nor there.

 

[Aber gas]

Oh so your violence is acceptable.

Do you know anything about the antifa case ? Or are just looking to score points with your normal arrogant and ignorant nonsense?

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

According to Aber he was he was a National Action activist, a National Socialist, in other words. That's about as far from the mainstream as you can possibly get. Using this as ammunition to attack Farage and co is cynical and opportunist to put it mildly. It wasn't so long ago that a BLM supporter executed two police officers in cold blood in the US, anarcho-capitalists did something similar, and an Antifa member was charged with the attempted murder of a Nationalist in Sweden. These people are the exceptions that prove the rule, if anything.

Mair was associated with National Alliance - not National Action. He was also associated with the Springbok Club - a white-supremacist group that wants to restore apartheid to South Africa. While we're on the "let's not tar all brexiters with the same brush" thing, UKIP Welsh Assembly Member Neil Hamilton is known to have attended Springbok Club events. I think it's important to acknowledge that while the people getting arrested on the streets there is a network of establishment types with far-right sympathies who are sensible enough to distance themselves from the murders/violence.

Anarcho-capitalists are fascists (essentially).

The Swedish anti-fascist you refer to was of attempted murder after he took part in defending a family-oriented anti-racist event from attackers from the Swedish Resistance Movement armed with bottles, sticks and knives. The police had prior knowledge of that attack but allowed it to take place, so it was left to antifascists to prevent nazi thugs killing people. The two incidents are in no way comparable.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Mair was associated with National Alliance - not National Action. He was also associated with the Springbok Club - a white-supremacist group that wants to restore apartheid to South Africa. While we're on the "let's not tar all brexiters with the same brush" thing, UKIP Welsh Assembly Member Neil Hamilton is known to have attended Springbok Club events. I think it's important to acknowledge that while the people getting arrested on the streets there is a network of establishment types with far-right sympathies who are sensible enough to distance themselves from the murders/violence.

This mostly amounts to conspiracy theory though. You can cherrypick random politicians from all across the political spectrum with questionable links, not least Corbyn and the IRA. The point is that to paint this sort of tragedy as if it were a feature of Farage-style politics is crass and opportunistic beyond belief, and more importantly simply untrue.

Anarcho-capitalists are fascists (essentially).

Fascism is Authoritarian Nationalism, Anarcho-Capitalism is the antithesis of both of those things.

The Swedish anti-fascist you refer to was of attempted murder after he took part in defending a family-oriented anti-racist event from attackers from the Swedish Resistance Movement armed with bottles, sticks and knives. The police had prior knowledge of that attack but allowed it to take place, so it was left to antifascists to prevent nazi thugs killing people. The two incidents are in no way comparable.

You're recounting the story as the assailant tells it, not the one that's been substantiated, and even he doesn't claim that the police just 'allowed it to happen' as far as I can tell. Certainly there were bottles thrown, but the idea that they had knives and were liable to kill someone had he not acted is baseless, and as far as we know just the excuse of a man trying to avoid prison time.

I'm sure there are plenty of other cases of a tiny minority within a fringe group going to extremes that don't represent the rest. Certainly the animals rights lot have some loathsome individuals among them off the top of my head.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Lets not start with this please. Wait till we know why it happened, why he did it, before we start claiming he is being given a free pass because of his race.

lol i say this everytime a brown person commits an attack and no-one notices. it's always a good idea to wait for details to emerge

 

[NorfolkWomble]

lol i say this everytime a brown person commits an attack and no-one notices. it's always a good idea to wait for details to emerge

And until I have read something about the motive I dlnt comment.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

This mostly amounts to conspiracy theory though. You can cherrypick random politicians from all across the political spectrum with questionable links, not least Corbyn and the IRA. The point is that to paint this sort of tragedy as if it were a feature of Farage-style politics is crass and opportunistic beyond belief, and more importantly simply untrue.

I don't think nazi street violence is a feature of Farage-style politics. That said, there is a network of far-right groups that don't necessarily engage in street-violence but contribute to a climate where racist and fascist politics are more acceptable. These people include Tory MPs/advisers and elected UKIP members who wouldn't go near a fascist street-rally.

Examples include (pretty sure that there are others):
- Jacob Rees-Mogg attending the annual dinner of the Traditional Britain Group.
- Daniel Finkelstein and Douglas Murray sitting on the board of the far-right Gatestone Institute think-tank.

Fascism is Authoritarian Nationalism, Anarcho-Capitalism is the antithesis of both of those things.

Chomsky on Anarcho-Capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error

You're recounting the story as the assailant tells it, not the one that's been substantiated, and even he doesn't claim that the police just 'allowed it to happen' as far as I can tell. Certainly there were bottles thrown, but the idea that they had knives and were liable to kill someone had he not acted is baseless, and as far as we know just the excuse of a man trying to avoid prison time.

I'm sure there are plenty of other cases of a tiny minority within a fringe group going to extremes that don't represent the rest. Certainly the animals rights lot have some loathsome individuals among them off the top of my head.

Well whatever. I stand by the right of antifascists to defend themselves.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Well I would agree with Chomsky on that score. Anarcho-Capitalism is similar to Communism in that it's dependent on human beings not acting like human beings in order to function. The rich would simply buy armies and the (non)state would descend into feudalism.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Absolutely horrific that you can assassinate an MP in this country now and be merely inches wide of the Overton Window in what you believe in in doing so. "We must listen to these people and respect what they have to say". Less than a month ago Farage said "Violence is the next step" in immigration. Evil, evil people, extremely threatening, and now is the time that we face down the fascism we've long harboured and disguised as pomp and pride. Shattering, extremely disturbing news that makes the countless racist comments I've heard spill out from people over the last year or so resonate deeply. We can't accept current attitudes the way they are. A mother who also happened to be a non-prominent MP with an impressive history of standing up for the minority has been killed in cold blood at what should be a quiet village surgery. This country is diseased and worse still, I can only see the media continuing to stoke the flames of divide and rule after today's ceasefire. Can't believe things are only getting worse.

Yes, good post - difficult to know how to respond in the aftermath of something like this but I don't like the way we're heading at the moment (feels like certain media outlets and politicians are always looking to inflame and exploit fear and anger and the general atmosphere is really quite toxic). Jo Cox's death is desperately sad

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I dunno. Ours is a very adversarial political culture. Always has been. Despite this, just 8 serving MPs have been murdered in the course of our parliamentary history. 6 of those were murdered by Irish republicans at various points between 1882 and 1990. One (Spencer Perceval in 1812) was killed over a personal debt. The other is poor Jo Cox.

So far, the 'debate' about her murder has been less than helpful. Some of the details about the killer are sketchy; ergo, people are doing what they usually do when they lack epistemic certainty: they write their own narrative, oblivious to how much confirmation bias is at play when they do.

Folk who think debates about identity, culture and immigration are inherently dangerous seize on the "Britain first" claim as it confirms what they already think. Folk who want to debate those things perceive that narrative as a threat, a weapon that can be used to further narrow the boundaries of 'acceptable' discourse. So (somewhat ironically) they look to shut it down. No political agenda here, folks. The lad was bonkers. Those shameless lefties are just exploiting a tragedy to make political hay. And so on.

What we get, then, is a highly speculative discourse that is largely framed in terms of a false dichotomy. Was the motivation political, or was he mentally ill? This question presupposes (quite wrongly, IMO) that those two things can't co-exist.

 

[silkyman]

From the BBC...

Thomas Mair told Westminster Magistrates' Court, "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain", when asked to confirm his name.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

long name

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I dunno. Ours is a very adversarial political culture. Always has been. Despite this, just 8 serving MPs have been murdered in the course of our parliamentary history. 6 of those were murdered by Irish republicans at various points between 1882 and 1990. One (Spencer Pereval in 1812) was killed over a personnel debt. The other is poor Jo Cox.

So far, the 'debate' about her murder has been less than helpful. Some of the details about the killer are sketchy; ergo, people are doing what they usually do when they lack epistemic certainty: they write their own narrative, oblivious to how much confirmation bias is at play when they do.

Folk who think debates about identity, culture and immigration are inherently dangerous seize on the "Britain first" claim as it confirms what they already think. Folk who want to debate those things perceive that narrative as a threat, a weapon that can be used to further narrow the boundaries of 'acceptable' discourse. So (somewhat ironically) they look to shut it down. No political agenda here, folks. The lad was bonkers. Those shameless lefties are just exploiting a tragedy to make political hay. And so on.

What we get, then, is a highly speculate discourse that is largely framed in terms of a false dichotomy. Was the motivation political, or was he mentally ill? This question pre-supposes (quite wrongly, IMO) that those two things can't co-exist.

I don't think anyone (on either side) is denying that he had mental health problems and had far-right links. But how it's framed is important.

Michael Adebowale, who murdered Lee Rigby, had a history of mental illness and was "borderline schizophrenic" according to psychiatrists. Yet his mental health was a footnote to a murder that was universally treated, first and foremost, as an act of political violence (and rightly so). There was lots of discussion about radicalisation; Tony Blair (and probably others) talked about how it was symptomatic of problems within Islam.

Zack Davies, a National Action member* who attempted to behead a Sikh dentist in a supermarket in my home-town (in "revenge" for Lee Rigby), was described as a "nazi obsessed loner". There was no attempt to analyse the wider far-right - which at that time was attempting to unify and unite its most extreme and violent elements. There was no discussion of how young, white kids can be protected from radicalisation.

You can draw these parallels elsewhere - Omar Mateen versus Dylan Roof for example.

There are deeper and more fundamental forces at play than simply people wanting to push (or suppress) an agenda. I don't think liberal (or even illiberal) newspapers want violent neo-nazis murdering people. Putting it slightly simplistically, it's about race. I'm not saying people make any conscious decisions in this regard, but society/the media/the political establishment humanises and attempts to understand white extremists and demonises (and treats attempting to understand as nearly treasonous) non-white extremists.

This is important because it leads to things like the Prevent Program - which institutionalises surveillance of Muslim children and young adults. Meanwhile, the far-right are given a license to operate with relative impunity. While this is an aberrant act, it comes in a climate where far-right violence has reached levels not seen for thirty years, and at the same time neo-nazis are closer to mainstream political debate than they have been in a similar length of time*** with the Leave campaign riddled with (and frequently using rhetoric formerly the preserve) of fascists****.

Our political climate is such that armed fascists rioting while flying the War Flag of the Third Reich can be referred to in the liberal New Statesman as "anti-immigration demonstrators". Where far-right terror is normally (clearly not in this case though) only worthy of maybe a short article on the inside pages of most newspapers. This is very much a high water mark and I think (and hope) people will take a look at the political discourse and step backwards from the more toxic and dangerous narratives. But it's also a pretty strong warning sign for those that have previously ignored or indulged right-wing extremism.

* to what extent he was actively part of NA is probably up for debate - was he ever an active part or merely a hanger-on**. Again - not a debate that really happens when the perpetrator of an atrocity is muslim.
** while we're talking about the far-right, possibly worth mentioning how controlling access to radical right-wing groups or spaces can be used as a way of radicalising people and generating "lone-wolf" attacks. By convincing vulnerable people that they need to prove their worth to an extremist group, you can perpetrate terror attacks at arms length.
***perhaps those things go together?
****this is not to say there's anything racist or fascist about wanting to leave the EU, but the direction of the debate has increasingly leant towards legitimising far-right talking points. This isn't solely the fault of Leave - the Remain campaign has been more than willing to talk up the dangers of immigration for their own short-term gain.

 

[NorfolkWomble]

Until recently there wasn't really much fear that the far right was inclined to violence though was there?

I saw some Antifa group claiming the official leave campaign had blood on their hands. The only people with blood on their hands are those who encourage violence or commit it themselves.

Maybe a heavier condemnation of groups like Britain First is what is needed, and hopefully after this they will become an irrelevance.

 

[.V.]

From the BBC...

Thomas Mair told Westminster Magistrates' Court, "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain", when asked to confirm his name.

In which case, is this not a terrorist attack?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

ofc it is

 

[Aber gas]

Until recently there wasn't really much fear that the far right was inclined to violence though was there?

I'm not looking for an arguement on this. I just thought this might be useful in explaining the historical and modern violence from the far right.
http://www.sicherheitspolitik-blog....ate-crime-in-the-uk-a-historical-perspective/

 

[Matt_]

What a twisted, evil bastard that Thomas Mair is, his comments in court today leave me feeling sick to the core and so angry.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I don't think anyone (on either side) is denying that he had mental health problems and had far-right links. But how it's framed is important.

It's less apparent now – understandably so, following Mair's court appearance – but previously there were people who appeared in a state of belligerent denial about the far right element, folk who were pushing the "apolitical lone nutjob" narrative hard, folk who were extremely hostile to any suggestion that political ideology may have been a causal factor. Of course, none of that detracts from your main point, which was that the framing matters. I quite agree.

There are deeper and more fundamental forces at play than simply people wanting to push (or suppress) an agenda. I don't think liberal (or even illiberal) newspapers want violent neo-nazis murdering people.

Well, my suggestion isn't that certain people want to see such things. The suggestion is that, when they do occur, much of the reaction (on both sides) is heavily shaped by confirmation bias and, in some cases, political opportunism.

Putting it slightly simplistically, it's about race. I'm not saying people make any conscious decisions in this regard, but society/the media/the political establishment humanises and attempts to understand white extremists and demonises (and treats attempting to understand as nearly treasonous) non-white extremists.

I have some sympathy with this because I reckon most people are a lot more influenced by innate racial biases than they think, and because it seems plausible that this at least contributes to the sort of inconsistent framing you have identified. I think it's overly simplistic, though. I think politics – and more specifically people looking to shape narratives to serve a political agenda – matters more.

Did society and the political-media establishment (both white dominated) really try to humanise and understand Anders Breivik? If memory serves, there were various competing theories, the two most popular being (1) Breivik was mad, and (2) Breivik was evil. For me, neither theory is especially sympathetic. Both are better understood as attempts at non-political reductionism, i.e. attempts to dismiss Breivik as some kind of aberration, someone so patently broken and malign that it's misguided to even consider his actions in a political context.

There was something undeniably self-serving and political in that. The refusal by some (mostly on the right) to discuss Breivik in a political context was not primarily motivated by a sense of racial kinship (conscious or unconscious) but by political anxiety. Since Breivik's politics were obviously far right, and since many on the left have no qualms about conflating the far right with the centre right (or just social conservatism generally), there was fear there. Fear of being damned by association. Fear that the event would used to justify a further sanitisation of our political discourse, making various topics of concern such as immigration and multiculturalism more verboten, more difficult to discuss.

While this is an aberrant act, it comes in a climate where far-right violence has reached levels not seen for thirty years, and at the same time neo-nazis are closer to mainstream political debate than they have been in a similar length of time.

If the proposed response is to pay closer attention to the far right, that's fine. I think mainstream media focus on the far right is roughly proportional to its electoral success (e.g. see the BNP circa 2009), and that may be inadequate, particularly with regard to understanding far right violence. Your points about the far right getting an easy ride, especially compared to Islamic extremism, are well observed.

The concern I have relates to my previously expressed point about conflation and opportunism. If the danger is the far right, the accusatory finger ought to be pointed at the BNP, the EDL, Britain First or various other groups or individuals that actually comprise the far right. Instead, sections of the leftish commentariat have decided to have a pop at Farage, Johnson and the Leave campaign, the recurring point being that their inflammatory rhetoric ought to be toned down, the implication being that a murdered MP (the first in 26 years) is somehow a logical consequence of their politicking. To me that smacks of political opportunism. And misanthropy.

Our political climate is such that armed fascists rioting while flying the War Flag of the Third Reich can be referred to in the liberal New Statesman as "anti-immigration demonstrators". Where far-right terror is normally (clearly not in this case though) only worthy of maybe a short article on the inside pages of most newspapers. This is very much a high water mark and I think (and hope) people will take a look at the political discourse and step backwards from the more toxic and dangerous narratives. But it's also a pretty strong warning sign for those that have previously ignored or indulged right-wing extremism.

We have to be careful here. Our politics is full of inflammatory (and therefore potentially dangerous) rhetoric, much of it produced by the sort of people who now are wringing their hands and solemnly warning that everything ought be toned down. Is framing immigration in terms of foreign invasion inflammatory? Of course. But so is pathologising dissent about immigration by shouting "waycist" when people express concern about how it is affecting their community. Is demonising benefit claimants as scroungers or potential fraudsters inflammatory? Of course. But so is reacting to fairly modest welfare reforms by accusing the government of hating the poor, killing the disabled and wishing to socially cleanse parts of London. And so on. There is always the risk that such inflammatory rhetoric will 'inspire' someone – most likely a male with chronic mental health problems – to commit an act of violence.

I don't wish to sound like a shoulder-shrugging fatalist about all this. I'm actually all for trying to improve the quality of our discourse (a lot of it, I believe, stems from us not teaching people how to debate properly). But we have to temper that effort with an understanding about human imperfection, particularly our capacity for denial. It's vitally important to acknowledge that "inflammatory" isn't a synonym for untrue. The incendiary nature of a political argument often has FA to do with its lack of veracity. On the contrary, a lot of 'inflammatory' and 'dangerous' rhetoric contains more than a grain of truth. Those who wish to sanitise political debate and censor certain points of view will usually frame their desire as an objection to the tone or the timing, but this is often disingenuous. Quite often the objection is to the content of the argument, to the basic idea it communicates. A more measured and respectful articulation of same idea – which may be expressing an objective truth they don't wish to admit – would still arouse anger. It would provoke the same instinct to suppress and/or vilify.

If we want a grown-up and intellectually robust politics – one principally guided by reason and fact-based decision making – then we have to resist this urge to turn political debate into a no-risk zone, an infantilised safe space. If "look at the political discourse and step backwards from the more toxic and dangerous narratives" means an across the board commitment to improve the quality of debate – a commitment to more thoughtful expression and response, combined with an understanding that robust political debate will inevitably lead one to ideas that arouse anger – that's fine. But many of the responses to Cox's murder (not yours, BTW) don't seem to be advocating that.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Did society and the political-media establishment (both white dominated) really try to humanise and understand Anders Breivik? If memory serves, there were various competing theories, the two most popular being (1) Breivik was mad, and (2) Breivik was evil. For me, neither theory is especially sympathetic. Both are better understood as attempts at non-political reductionism, i.e. attempts to dismiss Breivik as some kind of aberration, someone so patently broken and malign that it's misguided to even consider his actions in a political context.

There was something undeniably self-serving and political in that. The refusal by some (mostly on the right) to discuss Breivik in a political context was not primarily motivated by a sense of racial kinship (conscious or unconscious) but by political anxiety. Since Breivik's politics were obviously far right, and since many on the left have no qualms about conflating the far right with the centre right (or just social conservatism generally), there was fear there. Fear of being damned by association. Fear that the event would used to justify a further sanitisation of our political discourse, making various topics of concern such as immigration and multiculturalism more verboten, more difficult to discuss.

If the proposed response is to pay closer attention to the far right, that's fine. I think mainstream media focus on the far right is roughly proportional to its electoral success (e.g. see the BNP circa 2009), and that may be inadequate, particularly with regard to understanding far right violence. Your points about the far right getting an easy ride, especially compared to Islamic extremism, are well observed.

The concern I have relates to my previously expressed point about conflation and opportunism. If the danger is the far right, the accusatory finger ought to be pointed at the BNP, the EDL, Britain First or various other groups or individuals that actually comprise the far right. Instead, sections of the leftish commentariat have decided to have a pop at Farage, Johnson and the Leave campaign, the recurring point being that their inflammatory rhetoric ought to be toned down, the implication being that a murdered MP (the first in 26 years) is somehow a logical consequence of their politicking. To me that smacks of political opportunism. And misanthropy.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the far-right make hay when issues like immigration are front-and-centre in the political debate. I think it's also important to acknowledge how mainstream political debate feeds into and justifies far-right extremists. Jo Cox isn't dead because the Sun called migrants "cockroaches" but the relentless hammering home of anti-migrant rhetoric in mainstream politics does contribute to far-right radicalisation (if you ever were to trawl through the open-sewer that is far-right facebook, you'll find largely consists of the sharing of links from the mail and the express).

Again, to draw a parallel with Islamic extremism - we acknowledge that "hate-preachers" are a thing - that relentlessly hammering home a message about the decadence and immorality of western society contributes to radicalisation. I don't see how talking about our political/media rhetoric is any different in this context.

That said, (and see below for my reasons) I kind of concede your point about it being hypocritical and opportunistic.

We have to be careful here. Our politics is full of inflammatory (and therefore potentially dangerous) rhetoric, much of it produced by the sort of people who now are wringing their hands and solemnly warning that everything ought be toned down. Is framing immigration in terms of foreign invasion inflammatory? Of course. But so is pathologising dissent about immigration by shouting "waycist" when people express concern about how it is affecting their community. Is demonising benefit claimants as scroungers or potential fraudsters inflammatory? Of course. But so is reacting to fairly modest welfare reforms by accusing the government of hating the poor, killing the disabled and wishing to socially cleanse parts of London. And so on. There is always the risk that such inflammatory rhetoric will 'inspire' someone – most likely a male with chronic mental health problems – to commit an act of violence.

I don't wish to sound like a shoulder-shrugging fatalist about all this. I'm actually all for trying to improve the quality of our discourse (a lot of it, I believe, stems from us not teaching people how to debate properly). But we have to temper that effort with an understanding about human imperfection, particularly our capacity for denial. It's vitally important to acknowledge that "inflammatory" isn't a synonym for untrue. The incendiary nature of a political argument often has FA to do with its lack of veracity. On the contrary, a lot of 'inflammatory' and 'dangerous' rhetoric contains more than a grain of truth. Those who wish to sanitise political debate and censor certain points of view will usually frame their desire as an objection to the tone or the timing, but this is often disingenuous. Quite often the objection is to the content of the argument, to the basic idea it communicates. A more measured and respectful articulation of same idea – which may be expressing an objective truth they don't wish to admit – would still arouse anger. It would provoke the same instinct to suppress and/or vilify.

If we want a grown-up and intellectually robust politics – one principally guided by reason and fact-based decision making – then we have to resist this urge to turn political debate into a no-risk zone, an infantilised safe space. If "look at the political discourse and step backwards from the more toxic and dangerous narratives" means an across the board commitment to improve the quality of debate – a commitment to more thoughtful expression and response, combined with an understanding that robust political debate will inevitably lead one to ideas that arouse anger – that's fine. But many of the responses to Cox's murder (not yours, BTW) don't seem to be advocating that.

Might surprise you that I largely agree with this. I think "inflammatory" is a word that's often used by the left to censor the tone of the argument in order to avoid challenging its central premise.

When Katie Hopkins calls refugees "cockroaches"; when Cameron calls migrants a "swarm"; when Labour come up with dry, technocratic stuff about "controls on immigration" - these arguments concede the same central point; that immigration is a threat to our national and economic security.

The counter-argument, that free movement of people is a natural and largely uncontrollable process that, in Britain, mostly involves people moving to do jobs that there is already a structural demand for them to do - is relegated to the fringes.* In a sense, Labour (and the Labour-supporting left) can only critique the tone of an argument because they have already conceded its central thesis.

Part of the reason for this is that Labour has formally abandoned the solidarity politics that historically it nominally subscribed to and occasionally flirted with. Working-class solidarity has been replaced by pandering to the fears and prejudices of their idea of a working-class voter. Not totally, of course. When they say they want decent housing or free childcare they can safely be ignored, but when they say they want fewer migrants, or less benefit fraud - they're not to be challenged. For me, this is your infantillised, no-risk political debate.

* I don't think those two arguments are mutually exclusive - you can talk about problems caused by population changes, but unless you actually acknowledge that migration is more complicated than simply "people from poor countries want to live in richer countries" (and that controlling migration is a nearly impossible, and economically risk task that results in awful consequences on a human level) then any "debate" on migration is going to be relegated to a fight about tone.

 

[johnnytodd]

3 witnesses never heard any shout of " Britain First" sounding like a conspiracy to get the right EU result.

 

[Aber gas]

3 witnesses never heard any shout of " Britain First" sounding like a conspiracy to get the right EU result.

You don't half talk some bollocks mate

 

[Habbinalan]

3 witnesses never heard any shout of " Britain First" sounding like a conspiracy to get the right EU result.

Interesting. Lots of scope for conspiracy theories - for which this forum is gaining a reputation.

Two named witnesses stated that they heard the shouts -

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2016...cox-shout-britain-first-heres-what-they-said/

"....Several bystanders have repeated the claim to media outlets, the Guardian citing “at least two witnesses”, naming one of them:

Graeme Howard, 38, was among at least two witnesses who stated that Mair was shouting “Britain first” as he carried out the attack. The police later confirmed they were investigating the motive.

The Telegraph named another witness, gas engineer Clarke Rothwell, who said the same:

After he shot her the first time at pretty much point black range he shot her the second time whilst she was lying on the ground.

All the time as he was reloading he was stabbing her again and again on the ground in her body and shouting ‘Britain first! Britain first! Britain First’. He was shouting ‘Britain first!’ again and again as he stabbed her again and again."

But at least one (Imran Tahir) has said that he does not believe the words were shouted and felt threatened (I'm not sure who might have been the source of his fears) when it was wrongly reported that he tackled the murderer and was the source of the "Britain First" claim.

Cox Witness Says No One Shouted Britain First

• 
• 414

Friday 17th June 2016

A sign in a shop by the spot Jo Cox was killed states the claims that the gunman shouted "Britain First" are untrue.

Picture: LBC

The message in the landerette's window says: "Please note, I did not tackle the gunman. And no one shouted Britain First at any time."

LBC's reporter in Birstall Bethan Davies spoke to Ahmed Tahir, the owner, who insisted he has not spoken to anyone who heard that phrase.

And Mr Tahir admitted he was worried for his safety after reports named him for making to original claim.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

This is fucking ridiculous.

It doesn't really matter if he shouted "Britain First" or not, does it? I mean, he was an enthusiastic and unapologetic neo-nazi with links to several groups. Does it actually change anything if he didn't shout "Britain First" during the attack?

 

[Habbinalan]

This is fucking ridiculous.

It doesn't really matter if he shouted "Britain First" or not, does it? I mean, he was an enthusiastic and unapologetic neo-nazi with links to several groups. Does it actually change anything if he didn't shout "Britain First" during the attack?

I think not.....but it does matter that a local shopkeeper feels threatened if it is reported that he tackled the killer and was the source of these quotes.

 

[johnnytodd]

This is fucking ridiculous.

It doesn't really matter if he shouted "Britain First" or not, does it? I mean, he was an enthusiastic and unapologetic neo-nazi with links to several groups. Does it actually change anything if he didn't shout "Britain First" during the attack?

Was he now? that is what you have been told isn't it..............on the eve of an election where the probable winners are so called ' racists '

seemed to be pissing the polls .........bit of a coincidence.........oh yes !