Talk:Murder of Jo Cox

Material on Mair
I'm parking this here for possible future use in an article on Mair, should he be determined to be notable. In this article it's grotesqure overdetail. His dad worked in the lace industry -- his parents where "Mary, a factory worker, and James Mair, a machine operator in the lace industry". The lace industry. Got it.

---Begin parked material Thomas Alexander Mair (born 12 August 1963 in Kilmarnock, Scotland) was the elder of two sons of Mary, a factory worker, and James Mair, a machine operator in the lace industry. After Mair's parents divorced, he, his brother and their mother moved to Birstall, a mill town 8 mi south-west of Leeds, before his mother married again and had another son. Mair lived in Birstall for at least forty years and exhibited traits of obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, he was examined by a psychiatrist after his arrest who could find no evidence of mental problems that could have caused his actions. He believed liberals, leftists and the mainstream media to be the cause of the world's problems. Mair was a frequent user of his local library's computers, where he researched subjects such as the BNP, white supremacism, Nazism, the KKK, Waffen SS, Israel, public shootings, serial killers and matricide, as well as the Wikipedia pages of MPs William Hague and Ian Gow (who was killed by a Provisional IRA car-bomb). Mair was particularly fascinated by Norwegian far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, and kept newspaper clippings from the Daily Mail about the case. Detective Superintendent Nick Wallen from West Yorkshire Police described Mair as a "loner in the truest sense of the word ... who never held down a job, never had a girlfriend [and] never [had] any friends".

Although he had links with the National Front in the 1990s, and was recently seen at an EDL rally, both anti-fascists and supporters of various far-right organisations deny that Mair had ever "crossed their radar". Despite the presence of several fringe far-right groups in West Yorkshire and his identification with extremist political figures, Mair appeared to have made little effort to make contact or involvement with local individuals or groups of a like mind. Todd Blodgett, an American former far-right activist, told the SPLC that in May 2000 (when Blodgett was working as a paid informant for the FBI), Mair attended a gathering of American white supremacists in London that was convened by National Alliance head William Luther Pierce and arranged by another member of the British far-right, Mark Cotterill. According to Blodgett, the group of 15 to 20 people included Stephen Cartwright and Richard Barnbrook, and the group discussed how to expand American white power music (such as that promoted by Resistance Records, which Pierce had recently purchased) into Europe. Blodgett described Mair as quiet, self-educated, well-mannered, and loosely affiliated with the Leeds chapter of the National Alliance. According to Blodgett, Mair expressed racist and antisemitic views, was a Holocaust denier, and admired the neo-Nazi band Skrewdriver.

According to The Daily Telegraph, a January 2006 blog post attributed to the group described Mair as "one of the earliest subscribers and supporters of SA Patriot", a far-right, pro-apartheid publication (renamed SA Patriot in Exile in 1991), and published at least two letters in the publication in the years 1991–1999. Mair wrote to the organisation in 1991 saying that:I was most impressed by your publication and the insight it gives into the South African scene ... Meanwhile, you might be interested to know that the British media's propaganda offensive against South Africa continues relentlessly. Almost every "news" bulletin contains one item about South Africa which, needless to say, never fails to present Whites in the worse [sic] possible light ... The nationalist movement in the UK also continues to fight on against the odds. The murders of George Seawright and John McMichael in Ulster are an extreme example of what we are up against. Despite everything I still have faith that the White Race will prevail, both in Britain and in South Africa, but I fear that it's going to be a very long and very bloody struggle.In 1999, Mair wrote to the publication. In his letter, he spoke out against "'collaborators' in the White South African population" who were opposed to apartheid, saying that:It was heartening to see that you are still carrying on the struggle ... I was glad you strongly condemned "collaborators" in the White South African population. In my opinion the greatest enemy of the old Apartheid system was not the ANC and the Black masses but White liberals and traitors. In 2006 the magazine's online newsletter asked for information on Mair's address as "recent correspondence sent to him was being returned".

Following Mair's arrest, the SA Patriot said:It is true that a Mr Thomas A. Mair from Batley in Yorkshire subscribed to our magazine S.A Patriot when we were still published in South Africa itself. We can confirm therefore that we have never met Mr Mair, and apart from brief contact way back in the mid-1980s when he briefly subscribed to our magazine we have had no contact with him. All attempts to try to link him to our magazine during more recent years are therefore completely without foundation.Mair also bought literature from the Springbok Club. Alan Harvey, editor of its official magazine, told The Guardian that Mair sent the group £5, "which would have been enough for about five issues".

The Guardian referred to Mair as "an extremely low burner" who "appears to have fantasised about killing a 'collaborator' for more than 17 years, drawing inspiration from" David Copeland. Copeland, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and admirer of William Luther Pierce (head of the National Alliance) was a source of great inspiration to Mair when he bombed Black British, South Asian and LGBT populations on a 13-day campaign in 1999 in the hope of triggering a race war within the United Kingdom. Three died and more than 140 were injured, many losing limbs. Copeland was arrested shortly after this final bombing of the Admiral Duncan. Ten days after Copeland's first court appearance, a consignment of goods from the National Alliance headquarters in the United States were sent to Mair's home. According to a packing slip obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mair had bought numerous items from the organisation, including: manuals on the manufacturing of bombs and homemade pistols; 6 copies of Free Speech, a publication of the National Alliance; and a copy of Ich Kämpfe. Over the course of four years, he began to subscribe to Free Speech as well as Secret of the Runes and We Get Confessions. The SPLC released receipts showing that Mair had spent more than $620 buying publications from National Vanguard Books in the years 1993–2003, including works on how to make improvised weapons.

In 2010, Mair attended Pathways Day Services for adults with mental health problems. He then began doing voluntary work and told the Huddersfield Daily Examiner that volunteering had improved his mental health, saying: "it has done me more good than all the psychotherapy and medication in the world". The evening before killing Jo Cox, Mair, then an unemployed gardener, visited an alternative therapy centre in Birstall seeking treatment for depression; he was told to return the next day for an appointment. However, Mair's health was not part of the defence case in the trial. After his arrest, he was examined by a psychiatrist who could find no evidence that he was not responsible for his actions due to his mental health.

Cox was singled out for attack as a "passionate defender" of the European Union and immigration. Mair viewed the Labour MP as "one of 'the collaborators' [and] a traitor" to white people. ---End parked material

Wider Context
The section in question looks at the impact of the incident on the result, and references two polls conducted to that effect, and the backlash / distaste at them. It seems relevant here that one of the official campaigns was trying to use the incident to do exactly that, as it as revealing of the opinion/mindset on the matter as the other prominent participants and outlets already mentioned. By all means suggest better wording, unless there is a functional reason this shouldn't be here? EardleyC (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I note that there has been some disagreement on whether the text:

Subsequently, Will Straw, executive director of the Britain Stronger In Europe campaign, was criticised  after a leaked phone call emerged of him instructing activists to use the incident to "call out" leave supporters for "stirring division and resentment".

should be included, or not. After reflection, on balance, and subject to any consensus that may emerge, I would suggest omitting this section. I feel that by including it we are drifting from the subject of the article and going off on a tangent, discussing not the murder itself but what was said about someone else who said something about the relevance of the murder to their campaign. I hope this is helpful. In the meantime the section has again been removed. I suggest that, short of a consensus to reinstate it, it should not be reinstated. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Type of gun used by Mair
Re this edit: some sources say that it was a sawn-off shotgun  but they are wrong. The gun shown in court was a sawn-off .22 Weihrauch bolt-action rifle. The police were never able to establish how Mair managed to obtain the gun. According to this source, "Mair did not have the permission required to possess the rifle. The police say it was stolen in Keighley last year [2015]. They are still investigating whether Mair was involved or got it from someone else - and who modified it to make it more likely to kill a human." This isn't essential, but could be added to the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move. Opposers outnumber supporters, and also make a more policy-compliant case - that the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Jo Cox → Assassination of Jo Cox – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Plumber (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand there was a heated debate about this three years ago, but the passage of time brings more clarity to historical events. I cannot think of another assassination page on Wikipdia (and this is indeed categorized as one) which is named a murder. Assassination is political murder and is more precise. The murderer had clear white supremacist political motives in his targeting of Cox. Plumber (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I'm still happy with the current title.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Fine as it is. --90.253.62.91 (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The proposed new title makes it clear that this killing was not a robbery gone bad, nor a killing based on jealousy, nor an elaborate plot for financial advantage. It was a political killing. It was an assassination. Why try to conceal that? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Reliable sources, including the Jo Cox Foundation set up in her name, routinely use the word "murder" rather than "assassination", and there is no good reason why the editors on this site should use any different terminology.  Up-to-date examples here, here, here, here, etc.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; reliable sources describe it as a murder, rather than an assassination, and it is they, rather than our own interpretations, that we should follow. Put it another way: sources clearly do not see Jo Cox as another Airey Neave. Sorry. ——  SerialNumber  54129  07:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I feel that the word assassination is more of a US-centric term, and is not widely used in the UK. Pretty much all the news coverage in the UK uses the term murder. This story from yesterday opens with "The prime minister has been urged to apologise after he said the best way to honour Jo Cox, the MP murdered..." Indeed, the BBC uses the tag "Jo Cox murder" for all related stories.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above arguments, predominantly those of Serial Number 54129 & Lugnuts. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Wikipedia's very own article on assassination states "Assassination is the act of killing a prominent person for either political, religious, or monetary reasons." Jo Cox's murder was planned, targeted, and had political motivations. It has every single characteristic of an assassination. And indeed within the article itself it is alluded to at various points that this was an assassination; "The incident was the first killing of a sitting British MP since the death of Conservative MP Ian Gow, who was assassinated by the Provisional Irish Republican Army in 1990", "Attack type: Shooting, stabbing, assassination, domestic terrorism", "Ian Gow (another assassinated MP)". The article is also willing to describe another attack on a white, male, MP as an "attempted assassination" when motivated by Islamism: "the first serious assault since Stephen Timms was stabbed by Roshonara Choudhry in an attempted assassination in 2010.". Not to mention the Ian Gow's wikipedia page goes as far to have a subheading on his assassination, not murder, assassination. So at this point what exactly is the reasoning behind refusing to switch the title of the article? Because Jo Cox was a female MP targeted by the EDL whereas Ian Gow and Stephen timms were male MPs targeted by the IRA, and Islamist extremists respectively? If so then this argument is not an impartial one and I demand we switch the title immediately. Wikipedia prides itself on impartiality and to maintain the current heading is a disgrace to both Jo Cox and the upstanding on Wikipedia. Melias C (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's "a disgrace to Jo Cox", why does the Jo Cox Foundation not use the word? And it's unhelpful to try to "demand" anything on this site.  Thanks.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: The acts described in the article fit the definition of 'assassination' as provided by Wikipedia's own page and provide crucial context to the motivation that 'murder' lacks. As specified above, a prominent individual was targeted for murder due to political motivation and desire for notoriety. If this case does not fit the bill for 'assassination', then what case would? Even less prominent public figures such as the 'Assassination of Kim Jong-nam' and 'Assassination of Boris Nemtsov' have been deemed to meet the qualifications of 'assassination'. Infernoapple (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose its not up to us to define acts but use the common name in sources, that is murder. MilborneOne (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination, Cullen, Melias C, Infernoapple as well as arguments in favor of using the term "assassination" proposed in the previous discussion at Talk:Murder of Jo Cox, above. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: in the 2016 move request, there was a rough consensus for the "assassination" title, although some editors opposed it because Thomas Mair's motives weren't crystal clear (and, also, there's a documented systemic real-world bias that white terrorists are sometimes excused as being "mentally ill"). With the legal process over, one need only look at Mr Justice Wilkie's sentencing remarks, in particular: "There is no doubt that this murder was done for the purpose of advancing a political, racial and ideological cause namely that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism most associated with Nazism and its modern forms.". To not call this an assassination would be a violation of NPOV, in my opinion. Sceptre (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per sources cited by others. Arguing over whether this was an assassination (seems clear it was) is of no use: if the BBC and the Jo Cox Foundation think "murder" is just fine, we are not in a position to argue. Srnec (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add a protection template
To protect this page from vandalism. Salandarianflag (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This should be raised at WP:RFPP. It probably wouldn't succeed, because things have quietened down today and a significant amount of vandalism would be needed to protect the page.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)