General News Thread

[Zear0]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/02/marjorie-taylor-greene-real-time-bill-maher

 

Just to inject some light relief into this dark news cycle. 

 

What a pudding. 

[The Bear]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/02/marjorie-taylor-greene-real-time-bill-maher

 

Just to inject some light relief into this dark news cycle. 

 

What a pudding. 

Sadly over in the US they're gotten at with this sort of drivel while they are very young and grow up believing that sort of nonsense. 

 

I firmly believe religion shouldn't ever be taught in the education system in any rich, developed country. 

[Tommy G]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Just to add a little context here...

 

 

Not really - this is a terrorist incident towards random strangers, one earlier in the week too with a guy walking his dog. 
 

 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

While those are knife offences, that will include possession off, threatening to use and stabbings. Those stabbings, as we know from the news - are rarely targeted at strangers. They'll be knife attacks between young men who know each other. 

Yeah, that's in all likelihood correct.

 

All the more reason for cooler heads to target the specific issue rather than "country's gone to the dogs" rhetoric looking as if some kind of race war is inevitable (or even in the minds of some, desirable).

 

5 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/02/marjorie-taylor-greene-real-time-bill-maher

 

Just to inject some light relief into this dark news cycle. 

 

What a pudding. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

Not really - this is a terrorist incident towards random strangers, one earlier in the week too with a guy walking his dog. 
 

 

Is this a proven certainty or are we just saying balance of probability here (which would be fair enough)?

 

On the general matter, see above for further elaboration. 

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Is this a proven certainty or are we just saying balance of probability here (which would be fair enough)?

 

On the general matter, see above for further elaboration. 

It’s not a proven certainty in the public domain 

I’ll have a wager with you though that the nine critically injured are not known to the attacker 

[leicsmac]

Just now, st albans fox said:

It’s not a proven certainty in the public domain 

I’ll have a wager with you though that the nine critically injured are not known to the attacker 

I'm not going to take that bet as I'm reasonably sure I'll lose when things become clearer. Balance of probability. 

 

However, there's a rather big difference in inference between "reasonably sure" and stating it as a fact when it's not known yet. 

[Tommy G]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Is this a proven certainty or are we just saying balance of probability here (which would be fair enough)?

 

On the general matter, see above for further elaboration. 

Have a day off, seriously.

 

this is 100% a terrorist attack 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Have a day off, seriously.

 

this is 100% a terrorist attack 

The likelihood looks that way, but I guess we'll find out in due course. 

 

I would hope, however, that it's worrying that the hotheads appear to be steering things on all sides right now. 

[st albans fox]

39 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Have a day off, seriously.

 

this is 100% a terrorist attack 

Sure ?

 

both black 

Both British 

one of carribean descent 

 

Motive ???

 

Edited 2 November 2025 by st albans fox

[nnfox]

Police just said it isn't a terrorist attack.  

[ashbyj]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The likelihood looks that way, but I guess we'll find out in due course. 

 

I would hope, however, that it's worrying that the hotheads appear to be steering things on all sides right now. 

According to British transport police, stabbing 9 random people on a train isn’t terrorism. Wow.

[kenny]

1 minute ago, ashbyj said:

According to British transport police, stabbing 9 random people on a train isn’t terrorism. Wow.

Its because people don't understand the definition of terrorism. I had the same conversations on here about Palestine Action.

 

If there is violence with no political aims then it isn't terrorism. So random nutters with no goal or ideology are not terrorists.

 

 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, ashbyj said:

According to British transport police, stabbing 9 random people on a train isn’t terrorism. Wow.

 

5 minutes ago, kenny said:

Its because people don't understand the definition of terrorism. I had the same conversations on here about Palestine Action.

 

If there is violence with no political aims then it isn't terrorism. So random nutters with no goal or ideology are not terrorists.

 

 

Yep. 

 

And thus we see the dangers of jumping to conclusions. 

[Lionator]

7 minutes ago, kenny said:

Its because people don't understand the definition of terrorism. I had the same conversations on here about Palestine Action.

 

If there is violence with no political aims then it isn't terrorism. So random nutters with no goal or ideology are not terrorists.

 

 

Bizarrely I find this sort of violence without a political aim even more terrifying than the alternative. 

[Lionator]

How can a person be in a life threatening condition and then few hours later be discharged from hospital? Is it purely a blood loss thing? 

[ashbyj]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Yep. 

 

And thus we see the dangers of jumping to conclusions. 

It’s not always jumping to conclusions, for a large part it’s pattern recognition.

[Wymsey]

19 minutes ago, nnfox said:

Police just said it isn't a terrorist attack.  

Presume they know the identities of the preparators already, then, to make such a statement (but not releasing such information to the public)?

Edited 2 November 2025 by Wymsey

[Blarmy]

I don’t particularly care what the current definition is, or even why it’s important whether this was a terrorist attack or not. 
 

Is it good news it was/wasn’t? Bad news? It’s all irrelevant. Just words because people feel the need to categorise everything in line with their particular world view. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, ashbyj said:

It’s not always jumping to conclusions, for a large part it’s pattern recognition.

And sometimes that can be erroneous, and that error has consequences, as could have been shown here.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Blarmy said:

I don’t particularly care what the current definition is, or even why it’s important whether this was a terrorist attack or not. 
 

Is it good news it was/wasn’t? Bad news? It’s all irrelevant. Just words because people feel the need to categorise everything in line with their particular world view. 

As much as this is true, unfortunately in the current climate it's very difficult to separate news like this from various agendas on the topic.

 

I agree about not caring which demographic box a violent nutjob fits into, but so many other people do, and that affects all of us.

[bmt]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Have a day off, seriously.

 

this is 100% a terrorist attack 

 

26 minutes ago, nnfox said:

Police just said it isn't a terrorist attack.  

This went well

[kenny]

7 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

I don’t particularly care what the current definition is, or even why it’s important whether this was a terrorist attack or not. 
 

Is it good news it was/wasn’t? Bad news? It’s all irrelevant. Just words because people feel the need to categorise everything in line with their particular world view. 

If it isn't terrorism, then the police will be less concerned by a follow-up attack from another group and won't be looking for a wider network.

[brucey]

23 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Bizarrely I find this sort of violence without a political aim even more terrifying than the alternative. 

Depends on if the violence is targeted at a certain demographic, and if you're part of that demographic. 

 

Gang violence is least scary, as it's likely you won't get targeted unless you're involved in gang activities. 

 

Random violence (either from mental health issues or non-selective terrorists) is scariest for most people as it could affect them personally. 

 

Targeted/political violence can be more or less scary than random violence, depending on if you're visibly part of the targeted demographic making it more likely to happen to you than random violence. For example, skin colour, wearing religious/cultural garb, attending religious institutions, being visibly LGBT etc. 

 

[ashbyj]

15 minutes ago, kenny said:

If it isn't terrorism, then the police will be less concerned by a follow-up attack from another group and won't be looking for a wider network.

But your saying that there is actual terrorist networks in the UK that threaten the publics safety, just on this occasion it wasn’t them. I’ll sleep better now.