Why Are They Always In Such A Hurry To Confirm That This Sort Of Thing Isn't Believed To Be A Terror Related Incident?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5670645/Four-pedestrians-rushed-hospital-car-drives-Newport.html

/// Superintendent Glyn Fernquest said: 'I'd like to just reassure the public that this incident is not believed to be terror related and has no links to the Newport marathon that is taking place this morning. ///

What could it possibly be, a hate crime or a racist incident or just yet another nutter?

[sp1814]

Actually, AOG - you’ve asked two questions.

First you asked why authorities are ‘in such a hurry’ to confirm that this sort of thing isn’t terror related.

That’s not true.

You asked whether it’s a hate crime, racist inbcide or another nutter. None of us can answer that for you. It might have been a drunk driver. It might be the second act of an event from earlier in the night, like the Gravesend nightclub attack:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/car-driven-nightclub-gravesend-kent-blakes-attempted-murder-injured-latest-a8261731.html

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814
/// It’s to reassure the public. ///

Yes that may well be, but without definite proof, they are falsely reassuring the public.

I am not trying to say that it was a terrorist attack just questioning, why the police are in such a hurry with their assurances before they have definite proof for the reasons behind such incidents..

[ummmm]

Because like SP says...it could be related to something that happened previously.

[Mamyalynne]

They have said what they think at present, not ruling anything out.

// that this incident is not believed to be terror related//

[ummmm]

An 18 year old has been arrested.

[Zacs-Master]

You almost sound like you want it to be a terrorist incident, AOG. Ich answered your question 3rd post in.

[jackthehat]

We had one about a fortnight ago......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-43774604

Most people think 'inadequate drunk bloke in a snit' when there are a given set of circumstances but given the recent 'terror-attacks' using vehicles, as soon as the Police have satisifed themselves that it is *indeed* an incident firmly attached to something that happened earlier in the same area, the seek to reassure the public.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// First you asked why authorities are ‘in such a hurry’ to confirm that this sort of thing isn’t terror related. ///

/// That’s not true. ///

I believe that it is:

In less that 4 hours, they have discovered that it wasn't a terrorist incident.

/// Injured people can then be seen lying on the floor as the car fled the scene on Cambrian Road at 5.30am. ///

/// 09:15
Police Collision Investigations Team have arrived ///

[Zacs-Master]

‘In less that 4 hours, they have discovered that it wasn't a terrorist incident’

That’s where you’re wrong and where your argument falls down. They’ve said they don’t ‘believe’ it is. Is the subtle distinction beyond your comprehension?

[Jackdaw33]

Terrorist? Nutter? What's the difference?

[anotheoldgit]

Zacs-Master

/// You almost sound like you want it to be a terrorist incident, AOG. ///

Don't talk so daft and I don't suppose to these recent victims, it matters a toss if it was a terrorist attack or not they still have life altering injuries.

[Mamyalynne]

Glad they've collared him.

[Zacs-Master]

I said ‘almost’ AOG.

[marval]

Either way it was a deliberate act. I am pleased that he has been arrested. My thoughts are with the injured.

[sp1814]

AOG

In less than four hours, the police found that the incident wasn't terror related.

That's because they're doing their job. They initiated investigations, and they have information that we don't.

For instance, the police may have discovered that the driver and one of the people mown down are known to each other...and that one had a grudge against the other.

This is how the police will establish whether an attack is terror-related.

It can be done fairly quickly. Once the basic facts of the situation are established, the police can then issue one of the following statements:

1. This is not terror related.

2. We cannot rule out a terror attack at this time.

3. This is being treated as a terrorist incident.

I think that is pretty fair, don't you?

[-Talbot-]

All this reassuring business... I don't understand where you are coming from.

Am I supposed to think 'phew, thank goodness that wasn't a terror-related incident'?

It is just as worrying that there is a growing trend for fruitloops to use their car as a weapon.

The police are not always quick to rule out terrorism.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/two-men-hit-by-car-birmingham-mosque-a8326441.html

[anotheoldgit]

/// They’ve said they don’t ‘believe’ it is. ///

Exactly that is why I asked my original question.

"Why Are They Always In Such A Hurry To Confirm That This Sort Of Thing Isn't Believed To Be A Terror Related Incident"?

It would seem that the subtle distinction is beyond your comprehension and not mine.

[sp1814]

-Talbot-

The police won’t rule out terror when they suspect a incident may be terror related, but don’t have enough evidence or witness statements to confirm one way or the other.

In the case that AOG has asked about, there was a need to reassure the public because there was a big public event planned for later in the day.

[Zacs-Master]

It was a rhetorical question. One which didn’t / doesn’t even cross the minds of the vast majority of people because the answer Ich gave in the third post is obvious.

[Jackdaw33]

Causing injury by dangerous driving? On the facts we have so far this is clearly attempted murder and actual murder should any of the victims die.