So the Daily Mail write an article on the politician Jo Cox’s murder.
It kinda annoys me on a number of fronts. For instance they write that:-
Police tell the owner his stolen rifle gun killed Jo Cox the politician.
Wow. The point of telling him that was what Mr. Policeman, Spite??
As for the guy saying he felt ‘guilty and responsible’ for the death of the politician Jo Cox?
Don’t mate. It wasn’t you, it was the nut job that murdered the MP not you.
Only let’s do a little maths.
The rifle was stolen in 2nd August 2015.
11 months later on the 16th June of 2016 Thomas Mair murders Jo Cox with that rifle.
Well sort of. He did shoot her 3 times, that is true, but he also stabbed her 15 times.
I’m sat here thinking WTF were the police doing to find that weapon in the 11 months before it’s eventual use?A question that needs to be answered.
Incidently, the Daily Mail also need a course on weapon identification.
The picture of a 12 gauge shotgun with the caption:-
“In August 2015 the gun was stolen from the back of Mr Gaughan’s car losing him his licence”.
Daily Mail, a 12 G shotgun is patently NOT a .22 Bolt Action Rifle.
So what was the point of putting that picture in? Dramatic effect??
And they lose it a bit further down the article saying “He remembers the day his shotgun was stolen and recalls locking his 4×4 Mitsubishi L200.”
So which was it Daily Mail, a .22 LR bolt-action rifle, a 12 G shotgun, or both?
Incidently you forgot about the air rifle! (Although that’s not quite as sexy as a firearm).
You can tell this is quality UK press talking about guns can’t you.
However the Sun newspaper that ran the original article apparently got everything right.
Ultimately Jo Cox was murdered by a nut job using a stolen, cut down, .22 bolt-action rifle and a knife. So why try to embellish that to a point where the article loses credibility?