An unassuming man, not known by anyone to have ever expressed racist or even overtly political views and who had taught ESOL within the Bangladeshi community, is a secret, raving white supremacist behind closed doors? As Louise Mensch pointed out, when she was criticised for criticising the trial and judge, there is no evidence he was actively involved in 'far right' activities at all. It's so obviously concocted bullshit. And experiencing mental health issues does not make somebody a 'lunatic'.
This is not true. There are photographs of him recent to the killing in which he is involved in far-Right activities. Furthermore, he was on an obscure neo-Nazi mailing list earlier in life. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, good or bad, I merely observe the fact that he was involved in that milieu and the person who attacked Jo Cox shouted a slogan that could be associated with such a person. What those types of people say often is plastic and corny.
The 'attacker' deliberately shouted the phrase to order. It's a manipulation.
Thomas Mair shouted it because he was a sad, vulnerable man who was seeking comradeship and an outlet for his resentments. And it could be that his resentments were legitimate and valid, but he killed Jo Cox.
The police (or some other agency purporting to be police or forensics) swapped the bag for a different bag by the same manufacturer but with a newer designed handle attachment, as evidenced. Upon comparison, the difference is blatant. The bag was under a police tent for 14 hours.
What bag? I've no idea what you are talking about. There's no particular reason I should know. Perhaps you could explain? What is your source?
Simulating a repetitive limp in a consistent manner all over town is one thing, but simultaneously simulating a consistent, pigeon-toed gait (noticeable only upon closer inspection) in addition to the simulated limp? Come on. It's a different assailant.
It may well be. Have you asked Thomas Mair? Isn't that the first port of call for an investigator?
Yes a single witness gave a description. And the police claim Mair wore two baseball caps on top of each other (why didn't they just suggest he had a second cap in his sports bag?). Nobody recognised him. It was only discovered by accident that the police knew his name before they arrested him.
My understanding is that the witness who followed Mair didn't know him, but was able to identify him to the police, and they then traced and found him, which stacks up to me. What is a bit strange is that nobody at the incident recognised him, but there again, I'm not sure how busy Birstall is. It may attract people from all over.
What is your source for the part in bold?
By a strange quirk of fate, one of the plain clothes men who arrives at the scene when Mair has been accosted, has what appears to be an identical gait to the assailant who attacked Jo Cox. He comes and checks the area where Mair's bag was on the road.
If you could put the video up here, we can all look and decide that for ourselves.
Where's the CCTV footage of him doing so?
I didn't say there is any. You brought up the idea of him going to the shop, not me.
He was caught straight away because it was planned in advance that he would blamed for the killing.
How have you come to that radical conclusion? Could you take us through your methodology and provide us with your sources? If it consists of watching a Richie Hall presentation, I'm afraid I can't rely on what Richie Hall says. He has an agenda and he twists things to develop conspiracies. It's not that I believe there are no conspiracies, it's more that I think such theories should be based on sound evidence. Ironically, Richie Hall could be considered a conspiracy in his own right.
Re the remote garden he was supposed to have ditched his clothing etc. No witnesses saw him leave or enter that property.
But isn't that the whole point? If nobody saw him enter or leave, it sounds like any plan he had formed in his head was going quite well. Maybe he selected that location on purpose? The only problem was the CCTV and the witness who was following him.
'The loner with mental health issues found dead with self inflicted gunshot wound' (or it could have been 'death by cop' i.e. in the event there was a stand-off).
On the other hand, isn't a loner with mental health issues more likely to do something like this? It fits the profile because that is a likely type of person.
They couldn't kill him because he didn't go to the remote garden, so they organised a sham trial,
If I have you right, you're saying the police were trying to lure him to a suburban garden so that they could kill him on the pretext he had killed Jo Cox? It all sounds terribly complicated. Why don't the guys and galls at MI5/Special Branch/MI5/GCHQ [CIA?] just kill Jo Cox themselves? What do they need a 53 year old gardener for? Anyway, I assume that's why the man with the binoculars was there? Was he looking out for him? How did they know that Thomas Mair would be in that particular road, given that he lived some distance away (I think a mile or two)?