| Revision as of 23:55, 3 June 2017 editRich Farmbrough (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors1,725,752 edits →"2017 London Bridge incident" redirect← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:18, 12 January 2025 edit undoPincrete (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers51,339 edits →His "being sent for deradicalisation" |
| (813 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{WPBS|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject British crime|class=Stub}} |
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
{{ITN talk|4 June 2017|oldid1=783799844}} |
|
{{WikiProject London|class=Stub}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=B|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=mid|importance=high|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=low|Islam-and-Controversy=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject London|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Consensus|'''Current/recent consensuses:''' |
|
|
#Don't include Mike Pence's reaction: ] |
|
|
#Keep international reactions to a minimum: ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(15d) |
|
|algo = old(3d) |
|
|archive = Talk:2017 London Bridge incident/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:2017 London Bridge attack/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{YesAutosign}} |
|
{{auto archiving notice |
|
|
|
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
|bot = MiszaBot |
|
|
|age = 15 |
|
|
|units = days |
|
|
|small = |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{notaforum}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== This is pretty recent == |
|
|
is ongoing, and might not warrant an article in the end. It's also not yet confirmed as a terrorist attack, so it'd be worth leaving that out for now -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agreed. There have been at least two recent incidents which turned out to be nothing to do with terrorism, and so far not even the Murdoch press have speculated about terrorism yet. ] (]) 22:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed, could be a mad hatter in a mass spree and not all of those are notable to have a page.] (]) 22:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Second attack at Borough Bistro == |
|
|
We now have a second incident at Borough Bristro in London, looks like we are seeing another situation similar to November 13, 2015 Paris attack where Terrorist hit several soft targets. --] (]) 22:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's not yet confirmed as a terrorist attack, but given the two incidents it could well be. It may be worth waiting until a credible news outlet uses the word "Terrorist" -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::With this incident being in more than one location should we rename it? Thanks, ] (]) 22:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please note that Borough Bistro and Borough Market are different. Both are being evacuated due to an incident. May have to rename this to focus on London as a whole. ''']''' (] ∙ ] ∙ ]) 22:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As this is still an on-going incident and rapidly unfolding at a ], I personally feel it is ] on links and similarities. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::^ this, and the fact that unless this gets confirmed as a terror attack, it may well not be notable enough to keep around -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
{{ec}}:Until there is confirmation in reliable source'''s''', I'd oppose a rename as we don't know yet if this is even an attack or related to the Market. <span style=font-size:11px>] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>]</span> 22:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree but it depends Thanks, ] (]) 22:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::If the source of this is , I think this could be ]. The tweet and the overall article are consistent with exiting a bar, seeing an injured bleeding person and either correctly or incorrectly believing that someone had a knife in his hand. It doesn't sound like a separate incident. ] (]) 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not a confirmed attack == |
|
|
|
|
|
Has any credible news outlets confirmed this as a terrorist attack? I can't find any. {{ping|Walsak}} you mentioned one when you restored the attack mention -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
>> I was watching Sky News and they said so about five minutes ago on the live feed on Youtube.--] (]) 22:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ping|Walsak}} Anything in a reliable source? -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{To|There'sNoTime}} nothing reliable to confirm terrorism at this early stage. BBC have even reported that the police have not confirmed anything of the sort (terrorism or linked incidents) and urge people not to speculate whilst they are investigating a rapid-evolving series of incidents. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Vauxhall== |
|
|
|
|
|
Forth incident, what now. Should we rename. Thanks, ] (]) 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Its the third, not forth. And still too soon for renaming. It is already clear all this is unfolding at an alarming rate. Hold fire and be patient. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yeah. These are not necessarily linked yet so we'll just give it time. Thanks, ] (]) 23:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Categories == |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone keeps insisting on categorising this article as 'Bridge disasters' and 'Road incidents'. Come on! How stupid is that? ] (]) 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Very - so can we stop doing that please? -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Third incident == |
|
|
|
|
|
BBC are now reporting of a third incident in Vauxhall. I can see this article getting rather messy with severe disruptive editing. When is best for semi-pp? <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well there isn't any yet, so move on, to put it politely. Check policy. SP is ONLY for vandalism that can't be otherwise dealt with! It's not for preemption. ] (]) 22:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|Wesley Wolf}} Is salting it until the incident(s) have fleshed out more and have RS and not ongoing an option? {{wink}} <small><small>I know it's not but I had to try...</small></small><span style=font-size:11px>] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>]</span> 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ping|Wesley Wolf}} Trying not to, I prefer to err on the side of allowing editing than restricting it, but it's getting a little silly -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:There's been no problem with the editing so far, except for overzealous removal of material. All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
:::No it is not getting silly. I get really pissed off when as soon as something like this comes along a load of control freaks come along to freeze out IPs for no good reason at all. ] (]) 22:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Chill, it's not being protected just yet -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Control freaks? And "move on"? ], please! IPs have been warned from a couple of admins about attacking me lately. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 22:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Fair enough, but please don't SP this article unless IP vandalism becomes a ''real'' problem. ] (]) 23:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Until it becomes an issue, don't protect it. And it isn't that difficult to create an account if you're being constructive. You sound too experienced to be an ip. Thanks, ] (]) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Correct, but I'm on my works computer, and I never log on from it (and I won't now edit this article at all while logged on). ] (]) 23:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::We have a significant number of very experienced IP editors. All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
{{To|Chrissymad}} correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the act of ] mean the placing of creation protection level on an article? As this is already created, then I'm not suggesting salting whatsoever. All I'm saying is if this gets out of hand should we be looking into protection? This is likely to appear on the ], so protection level will be required at some stage per ] which strongly recommends when an article is {{tq|subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to ]) when ] individual users is not a feasible option}}. This is high media attention. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{yo|Wesley Wolf}} I was joking because right now it's bound to be a hot mess of unsourced or unreliably sourced claims as the incident is unfolding and I was suggesting it would be better to have no article and no ability to create the article than to have a dumpster fire. <span style=font-size:11px>] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>]</span> 23:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{To|Chrissymad}} ah right, LOL. Shall I get the coffee pot on boil? Looks like this could be a long-haul night keeping watch on this article. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 23:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Propose rapid straw poll move== |
|
|
'''Propose''' moving to ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 22:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
:No, the word order is wrong.Thanks, ] (]) 22:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose for now:''' as even the police have said they do not know if these incidents are linked, and are not treating them as such whilst they ar still investigating. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 22:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oppose, I'm with WikiImprovement on this one. I think it needs to flesh out more since we don't yet know if they're related, no matter how likely it is. <span style=font-size:11px>] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>]</span> 22:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' wording above, but I do support an eventual move... perhaps better wording would be ] — ''']'''<small> • '']'' •</small> 22:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' because of wording as well. ] would be better.] (]) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::The detail of the wording I am not too fussed about, that can be resolved in due course. All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 23:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
OK, let me explain my reasoning here. We do not know if the events are related, therefore having them in an article entitled "London Bridge incident" makes little sense. It may transpire that only the LB incident is significant, for example, in which case we can move back, but meanwhile it makes sense to have a title that covers all three incidents. All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
:'''Oppose for now:''' If they're found to be all linked later, then sure. For now, no. ] ] 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' for now as we don't yet have all the facts. Would support an eventual move to something like ]. No need to disambiguate with the day date. ] (]) 23:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. Many references now available for the multiple location aspect of this/these incidents. However, re-word slightly - 2017 London attacks or similar ] (]) 23:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Why has the article been , by {{ul|Rossbawse}} when this discussion is still ongoing? <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 23:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've also pinged them on their talk, {{u|Wesley Wolf}}. <span style=font-size:11px>] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>]</span> 23:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Map == |
|
|
|
|
|
can someone add a map of the 3 areas in London?] (]) 23:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
: is Open Streetmap of the area. Couldn't get my head around the attribution requirements. All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 23:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Article glorifies the terrorists and downplays the victims == |
|
== Number of deaths == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the "Casualties/perpetrators" sections need to be re-worked. As it stands the martyrs of this attack not even named. All we get is a sentence or two about their nationalities. Meanwhile, the terrorists each get a nice big paragraph, detailing their histories. In my opinion this is kind of fucked up. We need to de-emphasise the murderers whose named should not be remembered, and emphasise the innocent victims whose names and faces should be remembered.] (]) 01:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
I understand the need to get the wording correctly, but we all need to agree on the correct way to phrase this. Should it be spelled out or using symbols? ] (]) 23:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:This is not a memorial.] (]) 09:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
:Symbols? Do you mean numerals (1, 2, 3 etc) or lettering (one, two, three, etc)? <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 23:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, or using greater than/less than. ] (]) 23:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I would suggest using words until we have some reasonably stable figure - without "at least" or "more than" in it. All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 23:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Roy Larner == |
|
== US President Donald Trump first two reactions to incidents == |
|
|
In his first reaction to the incident, U.S. President ] wrote on ] in relation to his ]: "We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"<ref name=trumppushes>{{citation|url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-pushes-travel-ban-amid-london-bridge-attack/article/2624892|work=]|title=Trump pushes travel ban amid London Bridge attack|first=Robert|last=King|date=3 June 2017}}</ref><Ref name=fox13>{{citation|url=http://fox13now.com/2017/06/03/president-trump-tweets-about-travel-ban-after-apparent-attack-at-london-bridge/|title=President Trump tweets about ‘Travel Ban’ after apparent attack at London Bridge|work=]|publisher=Fox13now.com}}</ref><ref>{{citation|work=]|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-travel-ban-london-bridge-borough-market-vauxhail-2017-6|title=Trump touts his blocked travel ban during ongoing police operations in London|date=3 June 2017|first=Bryan|last=Logan}}</ref> He further wrote that the United States would do whatever it can to help out in London and the U.K.<ref name=trumppushes /><Ref name=fox13 /><ref>{{citation|date=3 June 2017|work=]|title=Trump tweets on 'travel ban' as London incidents unfold|first=Rebecca|last=Morin|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/03/trump-london-travel-ban-239104}}</ref> ] documented that his national security team had briefed him on the incidents.<ref name=fox13 /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to suggest adding a passage about Roy Larner, who bravely fought against the murderers, finally driving them out of a pub into the arms of police, probably saving several people from being killed. (, ..) --] (]) 13:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC) |
|
------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
Placing here for posterity. ] (]) 23:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Can we get rid of this absolute garbage from the article? I keep trying to remove it, but someone has now accused me of vandalism (LOL). ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 23:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:It IS notable whether one like it or not. I have trimmed the quotes to proper english.] (]) 23:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is crackers! There's more in the article about what Trump thinks than there is about the incident itself. Can we please remove the nonsense? ] (]) 23:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::: {{ec}} Does the IP need to be reminded about ]? What might be garbage to one person, may be useful information to another. Everything needs to be written in a ], including reactions from Heads of State. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 23:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Nope, but I think the editor who accused me of vandalism does. ] (]) 23:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Multiple references now applied to single statements - a sure sign that the contested statements should be deleted. ] (]) 23:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: {{ec}} That warning on your talk page is a standardised worded template, issued via ]. I wouldn't worry too much about it, and ]. I get them all the time and shrug them off like water on a duck's back. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 23:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: :) No probs - thanks. But what about that stuff from Trump? I think at this stage in the article development it really isn't needed and for the most part is not relevant - all that stuff about a travel ban ... ] (]) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== His "being sent for deradicalisation" === |
|
:::::* ] needs to be considered in cases like this. Too many inline citations for one piece of context isn't necessary. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 23:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Regarding this recent addion:''"Larner was later required by the government to take deradicalization classes to stop him from becoming ]."''<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dibble |first=Madison |date=2019-12-01 |title=UK requires hero who was stabbed on London Bridge in 2017 to undergo ‘deradicalization’ to avoid Islamophobia - Washington Examiner |url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/905808/uk-requires-hero-who-was-stabbed-on-london-bridge-in-2017-to-undergo-deradicalization-to-avoid-islamophobia/ |access-date=2025-01-11 |language=en-US}}</ref> |
|
:::::::Tweet 2 was just quoted on BBC News. I'd say that's the most relevant one to this topic and the one we should use. ] (]) 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}Replaced all primary sources with secondary sources. This is notable. Secondary sources are reporting on it. Multiple. ] (]) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The addition gets things wrong, fails to provide context and is poorly sourced. The source used says:''"Larner has since been added to the United Kingdom’s “Prevent” program, a watchlist for those deemed to have anti-Islamic tendencies.''. Prevent is actually primarily a programme devised post 9-11 to ''stop'' Islamic terrorism and radicalisation of Muslims. Any RS should know that basic fact. The UK has no programme explicitly to stop Islamophobia AFAIK. If Prevent also deals with far-right or anti-Muslim terrorism, then that it a relatively recent development. Secondly, the source does not say that the UK govt has done anything, the source refers to ''"UK authorities"'', whether that is police, courts or whoever is not said by the source, nor is it clear who it could be or when/why it happened. Certainly there is no suggestion that it was because of the 2017 incident. The ultimate source of the Washington Examiner appears in part to be The Sun. |
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a total lack of context, it seems that Larner committed a number of offences, including possession of a large quantity of illegal amphetamines and an overt racial attack, even Washington Examiner says: ''"Larner had his first run-in with anti-extremist authorities in January 2018 after he was filmed yelling racist slurs and spitting on a black man who was attempting to take his picture. During the explicit rant, he told the man, “People like you stink.”''. Why attacking a man in the street would lead to a ''"run-in with anti-extremist authorities"'' isn't clear, a local court would deal with it. For this incident he was given a suspended sentence, precisely because of his prior heroism ''"He was sentenced to eight weeks in jail and a 50 euro fine for his racist rant, but the judge delayed his sentence for one year, given that his crime had taken place just months after his heroic actions."'' He broke the terms of his suspended sentence and thus served the 8 weeks. He also broke the terms of a restraining order against his own mum ''"granted to his 80-year-old mum Phyllis. The order was granted after Larner was convicted for damaging a TV set at his mum’s home in Peckham, south London.''. He has also attacked his local MP, and acknowledged doing so ''"However, he has been involved in several racist incidents … these include convictions for racially-aggravated common assault and religiously-aggravated harassment for an expletive rant in his local MP Neil Coyle’s office.'' . Quite why, when or by whom he was supposedly sent to "deradicalization" classes, I haven't been able to establish, it is possible it was a condition of one of his suspended sentences, but the only source that comes up for me on a web-search for ''"Roy Larner deradicalization"'' of similar is the Washington Examiner! |
|
== "2017 London Bridge incident" redirect == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] has been redirected here. Should it remain or be changed to a disambiguation? Although this is the only to occur on ''the'' London Bridge, it is not the only on ''a'' London bridge. The first part of the ] was on Westminster Bridge, a London bridge. I realize that this distinction may be obvious to UK citizens, but I suspect that is not the case for most others. ] (]) 23:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
A 5-second search reveals that Larner's story is a great deal more nuanced than the Washington Examiner implies and certainly more so than our text suggested. One can simultaneously be a violent person, prone to racist outbursts and a "hero of the hour", when the occasion requires. What is core is that this page is about the attack, not about Larner, but if it covers him it should provide reasonable context, which the text singularly failed to do.] (]) 06:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:{{To|RN1970}} I wouldn't think that is necessary. Everyone knows about ''the'' London Bridge, and is hardly going to get confused with ''a'' bridge in London. Don't forget the worldwide known nursery rhyme, ]. <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">'''] <sup>]''' </sup></span> 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree. This is one of those weird cases where ] might be a dab, but ] doesn't need to be. All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 23:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
I think the "Casualties/perpetrators" sections need to be re-worked. As it stands the martyrs of this attack not even named. All we get is a sentence or two about their nationalities. Meanwhile, the terrorists each get a nice big paragraph, detailing their histories. In my opinion this is kind of fucked up. We need to de-emphasise the murderers whose named should not be remembered, and emphasise the innocent victims whose names and faces should be remembered.Oxr033 (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest adding a passage about Roy Larner, who bravely fought against the murderers, finally driving them out of a pub into the arms of police, probably saving several people from being killed. (The Guardian, Fox News ..) --Anti. (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The addition gets things wrong, fails to provide context and is poorly sourced. The source used says:"Larner has since been added to the United Kingdom’s “Prevent” program, a watchlist for those deemed to have anti-Islamic tendencies.. Prevent is actually primarily a programme devised post 9-11 to stop Islamic terrorism and radicalisation of Muslims. Any RS should know that basic fact. The UK has no programme explicitly to stop Islamophobia AFAIK. If Prevent also deals with far-right or anti-Muslim terrorism, then that it a relatively recent development. Secondly, the source does not say that the UK govt has done anything, the source refers to "UK authorities", whether that is police, courts or whoever is not said by the source, nor is it clear who it could be or when/why it happened. Certainly there is no suggestion that it was because of the 2017 incident. The ultimate source of the Washington Examiner appears in part to be The Sun.
There is a total lack of context, it seems that Larner committed a number of offences, including possession of a large quantity of illegal amphetamines and an overt racial attack, even Washington Examiner says: "Larner had his first run-in with anti-extremist authorities in January 2018 after he was filmed yelling racist slurs and spitting on a black man who was attempting to take his picture. During the explicit rant, he told the man, “People like you stink.”. Why attacking a man in the street would lead to a "run-in with anti-extremist authorities" isn't clear, a local court would deal with it. For this incident he was given a suspended sentence, precisely because of his prior heroism "He was sentenced to eight weeks in jail and a 50 euro fine for his racist rant, but the judge delayed his sentence for one year, given that his crime had taken place just months after his heroic actions." He broke the terms of his suspended sentence and thus served the 8 weeks. He also broke the terms of a restraining order against his own mum "granted to his 80-year-old mum Phyllis. The order was granted after Larner was convicted for damaging a TV set at his mum’s home in Peckham, south London.. He has also attacked his local MP, and acknowledged doing so "However, he has been involved in several racist incidents … these include convictions for racially-aggravated common assault and religiously-aggravated harassment for an expletive rant in his local MP Neil Coyle’s office. . Quite why, when or by whom he was supposedly sent to "deradicalization" classes, I haven't been able to establish, it is possible it was a condition of one of his suspended sentences, but the only source that comes up for me on a web-search for "Roy Larner deradicalization" of similar is the Washington Examiner!
A 5-second search reveals that Larner's story is a great deal more nuanced than the Washington Examiner implies and certainly more so than our text suggested. One can simultaneously be a violent person, prone to racist outbursts and a "hero of the hour", when the occasion requires. What is core is that this page is about the attack, not about Larner, but if it covers him it should provide reasonable context, which the text singularly failed to do.Pincrete (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
