Bit annoying

The man arrested on suspicion of murdering David Amess had considered killing other MPs, the Telegraph understands.

The investigation into the tragic death of Amess suggests he was not specifically targeted, but picked at random as part of a plot to kill any national politician.

Imagine the annoyance of dying on the basis of eenie, meenie, miney, mo.

Of course, we all do in the end, whether random chance or weighted that this bug or that cancer takes hold. But still.

10 thoughts on “Bit annoying”

  1. Imagine the dark thoughts of the family: “If only he had chosen someone else!” – followed immediately by the realisation that by so doing, you desire another person’s death instead . . . .

  2. Odd then that the puke lighted on a Tory who was anti-LD anti-vax and as pro-freedom as Tory MPs get these days. When there are so many BlueLabour clapping seals he might have offed instead.

    Hang the RoP assasin with pigskin rope and put him into pigskin body bag with several gallons of pigs blood. Buried on a pig farm with the ground soaked in pigs blood and shite.

  3. ” picked at random as part of a plot to kill any national politician.”
    With the state of national politics as it is, difficult not to regard this geezer as a hero rather than a villain.

  4. Perhaps he was radicalised and driven to the edge of madness after reading Angela Rayners Tory scum comments.
    Or perhaps not.

  5. Most likely, Sir David Amess was the easiest target as a decent bloke willing to meet his constituents to help with their problems whatever they were so no filter process only allowing “approved” constituents to approach him, and Ali had earlier lived in Southend so he had an excuse if anyone asked why he wanted to see Sir David.
    Decent guys are always the easiest to get to.
    So, probably not a random but a calculated choice of the potential target most likely to die.

  6. When it comes to gun control laws, hate speech laws, and many other instances of limiting freedoms in a knee-jerk response to a tragedy, it’s all based on the naive idea that “if only” laws were different, or if only a politician had different policy stances or rhetoric, things might be different.

    The left doesn’t understand the basic, fundamental concept that some people–whether due to upbringing or inherent behavioral traits–are just bad eggs. The government simply doesn’t have the kind of power over people and their actions that it wished it had.

    A scary thought, sure, but the sooner we understand it the better.

  7. @ opeirjaepr
    You do the left too much credit. The laws are there to control the law-abiding majority and the misbehaviour of those who have no intention whatsoever of obeying the laws are just an excuse to increase their control over the majority. *Please* read 1984 written by a former left-winger who went to fight for the Republicans in Spain and found out what the commies were really like.

  8. In 1812, John Bellingham, angered at his government’s absence of support for contractual rights in certain dealings with an ally (Russia), struck out at the first minister of said government he could find in Parliament. It so happened that he spotted Spencer Perceval first — the only solicitor-general or attorney-general to have become prime minister.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *