sparks Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Isn't that the bit they don't want him to do? If they let him, he'll show himself up as a complete w*nker IMO... Just like Griffin and his bunch of idiots were shown to be when given a bit of airtime - so on second thoughts as regards my previous post, the BBC did do something right for the UK! Censor a nutter, and you get more nutters drawn to an imaginary flame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alloneword Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 He can try and turn it into what ever he likes and if he has the right to wear a uniform then fine et him do it, for me it's about "justice" and IMO that means the families of the dead can see he get his sentance no matter what he says in court, let him say what he wants as sparks says just show him to be bonkers. All1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 As a slight aside, when is an act of violence considered an act of terrorism? - or not? Gun massacres in the west are often termed as the actions of 'crazed individuals', and yet it seems that when it suits a political agenda it becomes a 'terrorist act'... Is it when someone professes to want to change something, or if they act out of ideology that it becomes something more than a simple criminal act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndLoser Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 The judge has said that he didn't want Breivik to use the court as a platform from which the gunman could contact either of the two cells that he was working with... He's being kept in solitary etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.