Stephen Timms MP’s assailant treated as a terrorist attack


by Sunny
27th May, 2010 at 7:29 pm    

Channel 4 News is reporting today:

Exclusive: Police have warned four east London MPs their names were on a terrorist hit list, Channel 4 News’s political correspondent Cathy Newman has learnt.

The disclosure comes two weeks after the former minister Stephen Timms was stabbed while speaking to constituents. The attack in east London by a young Asian woman is now being treated as a terrorist investigation. His assailant is believed to have been radicalised by Islamist extremists.

Wow. I didn’t realise that the attack on Timms was by an Asian woman and now treated as a terrorist investigation. Was her name ever released? And why Stephen Timms? As far as I’m aware he’s not even spoken up about Muslims or terrorism in general (not that it would be right if he had…) – very odd.

Counter-terrorism still remains very relevant i seems.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: British Identity,Terrorism






23 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Nadia

    Oh please! RT @ sunny_hundal Blog post: Stephen Timms MP's assailant treated as a terrorist attack http://bit.ly/cMGOao.


  2. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: Stephen Timms MP's assailant treated as a terrorist attack http://bit.ly/cMGOao


  3. House Of Twits

    RT @sunny_hundal Blog post:: Stephen Timms MP's assailant treated as a terrorist attack http://bit.ly/cMGOao


  4. Nadine Dorries

    Pickled Politics » Stephen Timms MP's assailant treated as a … http://bit.ly/aL6HBh #NadineDorries


  5. Yakoub Islam

    Stephen Timms MP’s assailant treated as a terrorist attack – Pickled Politics: http://ow.ly/1QZZ0




  1. C M — on 27th May, 2010 at 7:38 pm  
  2. Sunny — on 27th May, 2010 at 7:48 pm  

    Crazy woman

  3. douglas clark — on 27th May, 2010 at 9:16 pm  

    Sunny,

    There is a serious point here.

    Terrorist legislation is being used as a way to deal with the crazy and the flippant in a way that makes me think that it is a rule too far.

    The woman was obviously wrong in what she did. ‘Terrorist legislation’ invoked at the first instance?

    I don’t think so.

    Why not gbh, or summat. It seems to me that the state wants to apply it’s most satanic legislation in all cases, not those that were argued out in the House of Commons when the Legislation was passed. And that is a ridiculous overuse of the law.

    We, it seems to me, will be prosecuted, whether it is appropriate or reasonable, just because. Just because they can.

    And the flippant arsonist gets exactly the same treatment:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jan/18/twitter-terror-arre
    ____________________________

    This is a complete overkill of potential sentencing in the case of the stabber and certainly overkill in the case of the jokester.

    We are entering into an era of over-criminalisation. Thank you America!

    For that is what they do. They treat law as truth and fuck the consequencies. they base their crominal justice on baseball. Three strikes and your out!

    See where that got them.

    _______________________________________

    You say you want to reform the Labour Party. Well, you could tell them that not picking up ridiculous ideas on criminalisation from the USA would be a good thing, for a start. These arseholes, US jurisprudence and law enforcement, just apply a law, without understanding of circumstance. Apply whatever force is required and go for a beer. And we follow suit.

    It is all very well pretending that Robocop is an answer, when it clearly isn’t. And what we have is the joyously humourless idiots we have in airport admin, airport police, proper Police, the CPS and some rididulous Judge. That is what you get when you have dominos, not reacting to the force of gravity, but reacting to the force of law without sense.

    _____________________________________________

    Here’s a test for you.

    You are on the jury. Would you find either the Nottingham bomber or the stabber guilty of terrorist acts?

    I doubt you would.

    But these are the lines in the sand that bureaucrats would have us follow.

    No discretion, no sense, really.

    I find this to be a step too far for the state.

  4. damon — on 27th May, 2010 at 10:02 pm  

    Jim Fitzpatrick is one of the MPs under threat.

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5748

  5. douglas clark — on 27th May, 2010 at 10:38 pm  

    Sunny,

    It is your place. If you do not want me to comment, just tell me?

    OK?

    This is the second thread where I have had something to say and it has not appeared. What the heck, Mr Hundal?

  6. douglas clark — on 28th May, 2010 at 3:07 am  

    Sunny,

    I find it a bit wierd that a post that largely agrees with you doesn’t appear here? What is going on?

  7. douglas clark — on 28th May, 2010 at 3:25 am  

    Just so’s you know, I find your unwillingness to open the Gita Saghal comments a bit strange, also.

    It seems to me that, if a blog author invokes censorship, then the said blog author has nowt worth defending. See most Euston Manifesto folk.

    Either stand up, in the comments which you usually do, or don’t publish. Seems to me to be the point.

    Why write stuff you are unwilling to defend?

    I will stand up for Moazzem Begg, even if he won’t. For we can’t allow the ‘Harry’s Place’ morons to sictate anything whatsoever. For that is what they try to do.

  8. douglas clark — on 28th May, 2010 at 3:39 am  

    ‘sictate’ might be a good word, it was, obviously dictate.

    For that is what David T, Brownie and their new bestest friend habibi do. Hopefully, using their names will be enough to invoke them here :-)

    Lets see whether the fools, as in brain dead, are invoked or not.

  9. Sunny — on 28th May, 2010 at 3:41 am  

    There’s no censorship – it’s just that responding and discussing on threads like that take up far too much time and I have to end up replying to people I consider generally brain-dead. And I’m far too busy these days to spend all day arguing. A few hours I can manage. Sometimes it’s just not worth it. They can bitch and moan on their own blogs, I don’t give a flying fuck.

  10. douglas clark — on 28th May, 2010 at 4:01 am  

    Sunny,

    Well, don’t have a post here. I have the utmost respect for you, but closed posts doesn’t do it for me.

    I would have written, on the thread that isn’t, that I agree with you.

    You don’t have to assume that your, heh, ‘normal’ commentators can’t see off the brain dead morons that are usually found commentating elsewhere*. I think you ought to see this as a communal effort – it is not just about you – y’know ? You do have folk that agree with you, most times.

    There are a lot of folk that think that you are right.

    Theirs is just another aspect, at least I think it is, of groupthink, which I think, hah, that you are against.

    * Harry’s Place and folk like them, obviously.

  11. douglas clark — on 28th May, 2010 at 4:20 am  

    Sunny,

    I am just curious about why my multiple posts – the same posts, more or less – have been unacceptable. Clearly, there is a word or an expression there that is obviously a no, no.

    As I am unfamiliar with what PC rule I am breaking. Could you let me know?

    You’ll find my posts in your wastebasket. Or summat.

  12. Dave Weeden — on 28th May, 2010 at 6:32 am  

    Sunny, not only was her name released the following day, it’s on Timms’ Wikipedia entry. Not hard to find out. Research is one of those things that separates bloggers from journalists.

    Like Douglas, I wanted to comment on the Gita Sahgal post: I’ve written about her on Aaro Watch, and largely share your views, however, I thought the last sentences of both the third and fourth paragraphs were nonsense. I now regret that I didn’t find another way to convey this to you as ‘Lucy Lips’ (aka, AFAIK, David Toube) has added his ha’penny’s worth of febrile opinions.

  13. Sarah AB — on 28th May, 2010 at 7:10 am  

    I’ve had a post about GS on HP – so I am clearly very evil. But I thought there were some decidedly weak/exaggerated points in her recent piece.

    It’s not black and white. I like HP. I’m a member of Amnesty. I don’t think the association with CP has been particularly helpful. I’m yet to be convinced it has had a negative impact on AI’s work elsewhere. GS’s article didn’t convince me of that, certainly.

  14. douglas clark — on 28th May, 2010 at 7:52 am  

    Sarah AB,

    Obviously, you are an exception. Though quite what you are doing hanging around with a bunch of wannabe Daily Mail journalists is a bit beyond me.

    It is neither black nor white, It is a confusing shade of grey, though the darker shades of grey is where you find Harry’s Place and it’s cohorts. Sure, they can argue a good case, but there is nothing much behind that.

    They lack bottom, if you’ll excuse that!

    They just argue ’cause they are quite good at it. Arguing, I mean.

    There is no real belief behind it. It is like listening to a QC that has had to take on a brief and will advocate it, for that is what he his paid for, yet the insincerity hits you on the nose. Much like chosing lots in a University debate. They were probably quite good at that too. It is probably how they ‘took up’ the Euston Manifesto in the first place, y’know, being contrary…

    For no-one that wasn’t incredibly stupid or dense could advocate that out of a moral principle, could they? They have to be playing devil’s advocate, surely?

    Least, that’s what I think.

  15. Sarah AB — on 28th May, 2010 at 9:15 am  

    Douglas -I sometimes find writers on both HP AND PP using what seems bad logic because they have taken a certain cause on board uncritically. I tend to agree with the more moderate Eustonite bloggers – they attract some much less moderate hangers on but that’s not their fault. I don’t think the Euston Manifesto is particularly contrary. What is it you particularly object to about it?

    I know you are a fan of this blog, particularly like Sunny, but also Rumbold. I don’t see how you can pretty much always agree with Rumbold but think David T and Gene, say, from HP are ‘wannabe Daily Mail journalists’. Both blogs seem too heterogeneous, and to have too much overlap, for one to like one of them uncritically but hate the other. David T and Rumbold often strike me as similar – a bit like Clegg and Cameron maybe!

  16. Sofia — on 28th May, 2010 at 9:29 am  

    don’t agree with using terrorist laws as a first point of call in this. Wonder if they’ve done an evaluation of her mental wellbeing and background?

  17. Fred — on 28th May, 2010 at 9:02 pm  

    Douglas Clark, get a grip. This woman has not been charged under counter-terrorism legislation, all that the report says is that the investigation is being treated as a potential terrorist incident.

  18. The Common Humanist — on 28th May, 2010 at 9:19 pm  

    Well said Sarah AB throughout. I like HP and the moderate Eustonites. What I don’t like are some of the Wingnut morons who infest the comments box at HP.

    ‘Wannabe Daily Mail’ journalists….oh please, give over Douglas.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.