Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by n1 on Sunday June 04 2017, @03:25AM   Printer-friendly

Armed police respond to serious incidents at London Bridge and Borough Market – with members of the public urged to reach areas of safety.

Since late yesterday evening [Saturday, 3 June], the Metropolitan Police Service has been responding to incidents in the London Bridge and Borough Market areas of south London. We are treating this as a terrorist incident and a full investigation is already underway, led by the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command.

[...] Six people have been killed in terror attacks on London Bridge and at Borough Market.
Three male suspects have been shot dead by police.
Canisters seen around the body of at least one of the suspects have been “established to be hoaxes”, police said.
Police believe all of those directly responsible for the attack have been killed.

[...] Since March there has been the Westminster attack by Khalid Masood, who mowed down pedestrians near parliament and stabbed a policeman, resulting in six deaths, including his own: and the Manchester bombing two weeks ago that killed 22. And now London again.

[...] An editor in the Sun’s London Bridge Street office says police confirmed that a number of blasts heard [...] were controlled explosions.

Source: The Guardian

An investigation into the foreign funding of extremist Islamist groups may never be published, the Home Office has admitted.

The inquiry commissioned by David Cameron, was launched as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats in December 2015, in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Isis into Syria.

But although it was due to be published in the spring of 2016, it has not been completed and may never be made public due to its "sensitive" contents.

It is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia, which the UK recently approved £3.5bn worth of arms export licences to.

Source: The Independent

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Jiro on Sunday June 04 2017, @05:28AM (3 children)

    by Jiro (3176) on Sunday June 04 2017, @05:28AM (#520110)
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @06:00AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @06:00AM (#520117)

    Not that you are COMPLETELY wrong, but I suggest that you consider that it is justified for people to believe that the freedom to say the most asinine and hateful lies is not quite comparable with e.g. the freedom to not be imprisoned without cause or trial.
    We do not allow people to intentionally hurt other people physically, and we trust the courts to get things right and not over-apply it.
    There is a good argument for the same thinking to be applied to psychological abuse.
    Not expecting you to agree with it, but at least recognize the reasonableness of the argument (assuming you are not one of those people who to support their view of free-speech-above-everything claim there is no such thing as psychological abuse and if words hurt you it's your own fault, I doubt there is enough common basic ground for me to have a discussion with those people).

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @09:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @09:57AM (#520163)

      the freedom to say the most asinine and hateful lies

      The most hateful lies are getting people murdered - Islam is one such set of hateful lies.

      We do not allow people to intentionally hurt other people physically

      Look at the migrant crime rates and tell me the EU isn't allowing this.

      , and we trust the courts to get things right and not over-apply it.

      No, the sentances are too lenient.

      There is a good argument for the same thinking to be applied to psychological abuse.

      So lock up the EU officials inviting mass migration, sweeping the crime statistics under the rug and calling for "hate crime" legislation in order to silence those who tell the truth.

  • (Score: 2) by quietus on Sunday June 04 2017, @01:19PM

    by quietus (6328) on Sunday June 04 2017, @01:19PM (#520198) Journal

    The media were a great facilitator in the rise of fascism in Europe in the '30s -- Martha Gellhorn [amazon.com] gives a vivid description of the [contents of] German newspapers, and corresponding atmosphere, of that time. That is the background against which limits of free speech (and actions, it might be added: bringing the nazi salute in public will bring you at least a fine, and might land you in jail in my own country) must be seen: lessons drawn from blood, not hypotheticals.

    If you want to learn more about the dangers of "free" speech, in this context, as well as in modern times, I can recommend Victor Klemperer's Language of the Third Reich [amazon.com]. Among other things, you might learn that the "fake news" meme was used by the nazi's too:

    On countless occasions during my spell as an assistant in Naples I heard people say about some newspaper or other: è pagato, it’s paid for, it lies for its client, and then on the following day these very same people who had cried pagato were absolutely convinced by some obviously bogus piece of news in the same paper. Because it was printed in such bold type, and because the other people believed it. … I also know that a part of every intellectual’s soul belongs to the people, that all my awareness of being lied to, and my critical attentiveness, are of no avail when it comes to it: at some point the printed lie will get the better of me when it attacks from all sides and is queried by fewer and fewer around me and finally by no one at all.

    The Language of the Third Reich (2002), pp. 207-208.