Finsbury Park: 'Several hurt' as vehicle hits pedestrians

A vehicle has struck pedestrians "leaving a number of casualties" in north London, police said.

 

One person was arrested following the incident on Seven Sisters Road in Finsbury Park.

 

Officers were called at 00.20 BST and remain at the scene, the Metropolitan Police said, describing it as a "major incident".

READ MORE HERE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960

Sad that the police and government are trying to say it's a terrorist incident when it's not.

Sad that the police and government are trying to say it's a terrorist incident when it's not.

Horrible as these incidents are, I agree.

Terrorist incident and even major incident are being used purely for political advantage in an attempt to manipulate public sentiment

Major Incident

A major incident is any emergency that requires the implementation of special

arrangements by one or all of the emergency services, the NHS or the local

authority for one or more of the following:

• The rescue and transportation of a large number of casualties:

• The involvement either directly or indirectly of large numbers of people;

• The handling of a large number of enquiries likely to be generated from the

public and the news media, usually to the police;

• The mobilisation and organisation of the emergency services and supporting

organisations, e.g. local authorities, to cater for the threatof death, serious

injury or homelessness to a large number of people.

• The large-scale deployment of the combined resources of the emergency

services;

Civil Emergency

Local Resilience Forum defines an emergency in accordance with the Civil

Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA 2004). An emergency is defined in the Act as:

• An event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a

place in the UK;

• An event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of

a place in the UK; or

• War or terrorism which threatens serious damage to the security of the UK.

Additionally to constitute an emergency, an event or situation must also pose

a considerable test for an organisation’s ability to perform its functions. The

two tests detailed in the guidance to Part 1 of the CCA 2004 ‘Emergency

Preparedness’ are:

• Where the emergency would be likely to seriously obstruct the organisations

ability to perform its functions.

• Where the Category 1 responder would consider it necessary or desirable to

act to prevent, reduce, control or mitigate the emergency’s effects, or

otherwise take action; and

• Would be unable to act without changing the deployment of its resources or

acquiring additional resources.

Now the Grenfell Tower fire should unquestionably be described as a Major incident and a civil emergency

.. as well corporate and political manslaughter.

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Exhibit-CCCS15.pdf

Sad that the police and government are trying to say it's a terrorist incident when it's not.

It's politically correct to say that a (apparently) white man attacking Muslims is terrorism.

Calling it a serious crime would be an insult (again, apparently).

I'm not too good with this PC madness even if I really tried hard to understand it at one point.

Nowadays I just laugh at anyone calling a blind man v.i.p.

(my blind friend instead gets absolutely mad about it)

Sad that the police and government are trying to say it's a terrorist incident when it's not.

Why do you think that you know better?

Why do you think that you know better?

It did seem odd to me, but if the crime was to deliberately target people based on their likely religion, then that might be interpreted under criminal law as being an act of terrorism.

If they did not judge it in this way, then this would contradict other recent crimes where a vehicle was used to kill multiple people.

To put these atrocities, terrible and abhorrent as they are in perspective

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/world/europe/paris-champs-elysees-car.html?emc=edit_mbe_20170620&nl=morning-briefing-europe&nlid=80833938&te=1

Although this is again one man with a van, I think most would consider this an act of terrorism ...

... but let me ask you all to think further:

If this; rather than a violent political activist; ACTUALLY turned out to be a criminal who thought the police were about to stop him in a stolen vehicle with materials intended for an armed robbery, and he is the sort who would do anything to get away without a moments thought for others (like many so called 'joy riders' who steal cars in the UK), would you still consider it an act of terrorism?

Definition of terrorism:

The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

This crazy guy didn't have any political interest, he drove the van into a group of Muslims because he doesn't like them.

So I think he's an islamophobic criminal but not a terrorist.

The authorities stated that this was an act of terrorism exclusively for political correctness

Definition of terrorism:

 

The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

 

This crazy guy didn't have any political interest, he drove the van into a group of Muslims because he doesn't like them.

So I think he's an islamophobic criminal but not a terrorist.

The authorities stated that this was an act of terrorism exclusively for political correctness

Groan.

It doesn't matter how some online dictionary defines it as. What matters is what constitutes terrorism in law.

The Terrorism Act 2000 states that terrorism means (amongst other things) the use or threat of action where ''the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.''

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1

Groan.

 

It doesn't matter how some online dictionary defines it as. What matters is what constitutes terrorism in law.

 

The Terrorism Act 2000 states that terrorism means (amongst other things) the use or threat of action where ''the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.''

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1

Groan

So that means if I say:

I believe in the rights of the individual to seek happiness and well being, and would fight to defend that right'

I could be arrested as a terrorist ...

That is an 'ideology' and a 'threat of action'

So would constitute 'terrorism' under that law as defined.

The NEW Tory proposals are so imbalanced that literally someone could say -

'I really believe in my morning run and nobody better get in my way'

WHAT!!!

Thats terrorism your spouting there - arrest her and throw her in jail - no court needed, No need to tell anybody.

Its one of those muddily defined laws that could be used on anyone for anything.

Groan.

 

It doesn't matter how some online dictionary defines it as. What matters is what constitutes terrorism in law.

 

The Terrorism Act 2000 states that terrorism means (amongst other things) the use or threat of action where ''the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.''

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1

You do realise that the government have changed the meanign of the word terrorism in THEIR eyes, to suit whatever they like.

It wasnt terrorism. At all. It was a lone idiot trying to kill people. That makes him a murderer. Not a terrorist.

You do realise that the government have changed the meanign of the word terrorism in THEIR eyes, to suit whatever they like.

 

No I don't reliase that because the Government didn't and doesn't change anything. It's Parliament (the collective of elected members of all parties) who makes and amends laws. That's why they're called Acts of Parliament and not Acts of Government.

No I don't reliase that because the Government didn't and doesn't change anything. It's Parliament (the collective of elected members of all parties) who makes and amends laws. That's why they're called Acts of Parliament and not Acts of Government.

But cjregg, our Government tends to have a majority in Parliament.

So in practice it is commonly the governments say whatever anyone else believes is right or wrong.

Hence all the ruckus about May NOT having a majority to push through her abhorrent social 'reforms'.

If May had achieved her expected Majority, they would have been pushed though against massive opposition.

Now I think Laws should require a minimum 66% majority for being passed.

ie The support of a significant majority of the members of Parliament,

NOT a simple majority.

let us differentiate between the government and parliament and also remind tobyjugg of 18th-19th century history. Government are the ministers of the Crown. These are these days appointed by the Prime Minister and are obviously political appointments. Ministers do not have to be elected MP's they are ofen members of the Lords and can even be people with no connection to parliament but that is are these days ( Charlie Falconer got the job and was made a Lord to give a fig leaf to the appointment).

MP's usually vote with their party and are given a three line whip if it is somehting the Govt want s to push through but there is a risk of dissent or wavering. Jeremy Corbyn has dissented more than any other MP in history when it comes to whipping in.

On matters of conscience MP's are given a free vote but these still fall into tribal lines on things like fox hunting buit hve resuklted in legislation abolishing hanging and allowing gay marriage. The arguments about requiring a 66% majority just dont hold water, it is first past the post for getting elected and doesnt occur in any other parliament in the world. Also, govts dont push through bills against "massive" opposition, they lose those votes or drop the matter during the debate in the cahmber. Occasionally things fail in the house of lords, which is supposedly a revising chamber. An equally valid voting requireent would be for any bill to be passed on the proportion of the electorate who voted the party of govt in so only 48% of the house would need to vote in favour. Now a similar PR voting system was tried out in Weimar germany and becuase No business got through the chamber Hitler offered to temporarily take an executive role under Hindenburg to help ease the logjam and we all know how that worked out.

Our parliament used to have alliances of friends rather than political parties as such so governments changed or fell more frequently during the 18th and early 19th centuries as people fell out, forgd new friendships and alliances but this did not eam an election was called every time somehting when wrong and nor was the system of simple majority ever even discussed.

PR and qualified voting only seeems to be favoured by people who cant get their own way by using the system we have. This suggests that the system works

let us differentiate between the government and parliament and also remind tobyjugg of 18th-19th century history.

 

 

Government are the ministers of the Crown.

These are these days appointed by the Prime Minister and are obviously political appointments.

 

 

Also, govts dont push through bills against "massive" opposition, they lose those votes or drop the matter during the debate in the cahmber.

 

Now a similar PR voting system was tried out in Weimar germany and becuase No business got through the chamber

I fail to see your point ericsbrother

Ministers of the crown in name only. They are political appointments. Full stop.

History?

What about Normans, Romans etc

Of course governments/Parties in control push through bills against massive opposition. I'm not going to dig out a few hundred examples where bills got through 'by a whisker', but just consider why May is supposedly working so hard for 10 yes just 10 DUP votes.

One link as an example

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/06/brexit-bill-must-not-be-obstructed-theresa-may-tells-mps

"However, the House of Commons opposed a Labour amendment that would have forced May to make regular reports back to parliament every two months by 333 to 284 – a majority of 49 for the government."

without splitting semantic hairs - the government got their way despite massive opposition of only a little under half of parliament.

If all that very hard to read stuff was to make the point that our system works? - well obviously it works, just as Hitlers (your reference) method worked very effectively for Hitlers party. It took immense effort to overcome him.

Doesn't mean it works well or can't and shouldn't be improved though does it?

the referred to amendment was defeated by votes of people who werent in the governing party

as for history, neither the romans nor normans had a parliament in England so not applicable or relevant. So, you have to refer to times when ministers were advisers to the monarh, how Charles I thought he was above all that and then the creation of parliament in is current state developed from the riegn of Charles II but properly from the time of GeoIII The point is they are answerable to the country and the monarch in the triple compact laid out in the Bill of Rights of 1689, which in itself was a restatement of the rights and obligations of the crown, parliamnt and the people. The only group that fails to understand this when they should appears to be Grauniad writers and they of course are beyond reproach because they say they are.

Your real beef seems to be that the losing side dont get as much of a say as the winning side and this is important because you support the losing side. Well, I dont agree with how the system works much either but there isnt a better one to replace it with. Your reference to "massive opposition" is again a misnomer and the majority was a margin of 10%, which is greater than the difference in the proportion of the popular vote between the various parties that represent us.

In all governments of the 1970's the party with the most seats had such a slender majority deals had to be done to get business done but all governments at the time also had a minority of the popular vote. Tony Blairs landslide victory still didnt carry the majority of the popular vote in England and he needed all of the 50+ Scottish MP's, elected by a minority of a minority to bulldoze his will upon the house but you dont find people whinging that was unfair, it was reported as the largest labour victory etc when it didnt really represent the electorate at all. Gordon Brown had a minority govt and had to do deals with the DUP but failed miserably to get what he wanted as did Callaghan and Heath and they were after 5 or even 2 votes so 10 is not such a figure of derision as you would wish to make it.

Labour got more votes this time round than Blair's gretaest day but there again the tories got more votes than they have ever had but a slimmed down number of MP's. That is political life, they accept it but for some reason the Grauniad cant quite get their head around the concept of MAJORITY rule in a first past the post election system.

I have commented on PR before so I dont need to remind you that if we had that electoral system we would have 15 SNP MP's, 10 UKIP 5 Greens and 2 BNP members with proportionally more tories than labour anyway (312-273) Fancy that?

Your real beef seems to be that the losing side dont get as much of a say as the winning side and this is important because you support the losing side. Well, I dont agree with how the system works much either but there isnt a better one to replace it with. Your reference to "massive opposition" is again a misnomer and the majority was a margin of 10%, which is greater than the difference in the proportion of the popular vote between the various parties that represent us.

Wrong.

My beef is that a relatively small majority (in fact only ONE single vote) can progress controversial issues which a large proportion of our elected representatives oppose.

That differential (10%) is not enough in my opinion. So a differential of 1 - 2 (LESS than 1%) as has occurred on a number of occasions - certainly doesn't.

The example I gave was a quite common one, not in any way as striking as many, but still shows that on diametrically opposed votes, a first past the post result shows up the dramatic flaws and faults in such a system.

For example: Politicians have often used the techniques of hiding salient points in reams of waffle to sneak a controversial point through hoping people miss it..