Jambalaya - Given how the police in this country have rampantly abused the anti-terrorism laws they've already got, to stifle legitimate protest for instance, do you think they could be trusted with the kind of powers Boris is proposing?
If so, then you're being hopelessly naive. British law has the burden of presumed innocence built in for very good reason! We need to keep it that way! Despite what authoritarian, right wing half-wits think
Nope, in my book I wouldn't allow those people (mdeics etc) back either without checks.
What kind of checks? How do you realistically propose to verify that a medic has been working in Kurdish-held rather than IS-held territory? Or that s/he never picked up a gun while out there?
Stupid idea.
Standard issue problem reaction solution to help justify surveillance and slowly erode liberties...
To be fair to Boris, he packaged it quite well, by using a statement many people will agree with:
'Jihadi John should be killed in a bomb attack'
Must say, it's quite strange how the rapper who they are beginning to portray as Jihadi John was 1st publicized a few days before the beheading (which is being variously portrayed as staged and over a year old by some MSM sources).
Best solution is probably for Boris to wait eagerly at the border, his fat fingers poised at the controls of one of the watercannons he purchased with taxpayers money, whilst his buffoonish puppy eyes look oh so innocent for the camera...
How do you prove that you haven't done something?
By having a convincing alibi backed up with evidence.
[i]a convincing alibi backed up with evidence[/i]
So you could keep a blog;
[i]
Day 1: didn;t fight for ISIS. Visited cousin Dave in Syria.
Day 2: still not fighting for ISIS. Cousin Dave took me for a day trip to the countryside. Took some pictures (attached).
[/i]
?
Jambalaya is a Mossad plant sent to swing public opinion and divert attention from deeper manipulations beyond the gaze of the mainstream media.
You'll need a pretty solid alibi to convince me otherwise.
The penalty is verbal tickling and a wealth of inane emoticons 😉 😆 8)
..... and here's us on our basket-weaving course, where we helped disabled children, and definitely not manning an anti-tank gun....
Given the government has suggested that most people going to Syria go to Turkey then sneak over the border, will all British people in Turkey have to explain their movements, or just suspicious beardy muslim types?
As an aside, I saw an interview with one of the British ISIS people and if you can put aside the atrocities and the rhetoric about creating a global islamic caliphate what they're trying to do (carve out a homeland at gunpoint) isn't that different from what people have done for centuries and relatively recently at that. If all they'd done was win parts of two broken countries and ensure the inhabitants were fed and clothed and had utilities, I don't see anyone would have complained. Tremendous own goal all this murder and mayhem really.
Visited cousin Dave in Syria.
Schoolboy error - David is a Jewish name. So fails the "convincing alibi" test.
so this Jihadi John bloke - what religion is he likely to be?
[edit] My cousin Dave is a Syrian Christian, btw...
Schoolboy error - David is a Jewish name. So fails the "convincing alibi" test.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_in_Islam ]Not quite[/url].
I have known one Muslim called David. It still fails the "convincing alibi" test. My cousin Mo would have been more convincing.
[i]My cousin Mo[/i]
Maureen?
I have known one Muslim called David. It still fails the "convincing alibi" test. My cousin Mo would have been more convincing.
Too obvious, you need to be a bit more crafty to get past Boris.
Just a nonsense soundbite really, but why stop with Syria and Iraq? why not include for example ****stan- lots of Al Queda's guys in the afghan were based/trained there....
This is the Crux of it IMO, banning, or requiring British citizens to seek permission to travel to specific war zones/countries is nigh on pointless, anyone determined to get in will simply travel to neighbouring countries with porous borders, and/or acquire themselves a fake passport... where there's a will there's a way.
Imposing Travel restrictions means would be terrorists are that bit more likely to circumvent the system, allowing free travel on their UK passports at least means our border agencies can try track who has travelled where, and can pass that information on to our intelligence services.
Boris's proposal's would actually work against the mechanisms we have for tracking "Home grown terrorist's" travel habits...
It is of course a bit of sound-bite politicising to help him appeal to the right of centre Tory/UKIP floaters, and sway them towards the idea of Boris as PM [Shudders] I'll be interested to see if he weighs in on some other more domestic topics with similarly well thought through freestyle policy making...
Boris is a liability for the Tory party and a Gift to Farage, God bless his fluffy little head...
In my deranged opinion, much of this is an attempt to seed fear and mistrust of brown people in the general populous, to divert attention away from the myriad ills of our governments that spawned these troubles in the first place.
Immigrants, benefit scroungers and terrorists do a fine job of mopping up the blame, whilst Eton bum boys rape the economy (and kids (allegedly))
Uk law has already got rid of innocent til proven guilty for most motoring offences so he is only carry on a noble undermining of uk citizens right. Just what you would expect from a true blue Tory
We have been doing this for years with renditions and Guantanamo.
Raising the rather awkward question of once you've rendered someone into legal limbo, what the hell do you do with them then? As there is no legal process.
The Americans haven't found an answer to that one yet. And neither would we. But thats what happens when you ignore centuries of reasoned legal precedent, then make up stupid, ill-conceived, knee-jerk policies on the hoof. I would imagine that if Boris ever got a sniff of real power (God forbid!), there would be an awful lot of that kind of thing going on
If they got permission first that would be OK for them to return assuming whilst they where there they didn't become known or suspected to have engaged in terrorist activities. If suspected they would have to prove they did not.
What would be the criteria for permission? What information should be supplied? How long should it take? Who would determine it?
Raising the rather awkward question of once you've rendered someone into legal limbo, what the hell do you do with them then? As there is no legal process.
The point was made elsewhere that as soon as you allow people to become stateless, how do you deport them? So if, say, a German criminal had his citizenship revoked and committed crimes in the UK, where would we "send him back" to?
Jambalaya is a Mossad plant sent to swing public opinion and divert attention from deeper manipulations beyond the gaze of the mainstream media.You'll need a pretty solid alibi to convince me otherwise.
@john - I think 5 mins over a beer would convince you. I don't think I've convinced anybody of anything so far, surely if I was Mossad I'd be at least moderately effective at something 😕 Interestingly the mainstream media is camped out in Gaza at the invitation of Hamas, its too dangerous to go to Syria or Iraq or Libya. ISIS has captured and held hostage 20+ journalists and aid workers, they don't want any coverage of what they are doing apart from the images they release.
so this Jihadi John bloke - what religion is he likely to be?
@wasawas. His father was Egyptian, so he could be Muslim or Christian originally. A high portion of the terrorists appear to be recent converts fed a highly twisted version of Islam so original religion (if any) is irrelevant.
Who would determine it?
@kona the courts would decide
The point was made elsewhere that as soon as you allow people to become stateless, how do you deport them
@altaz that's one of the key benefits of not letting them back in the first place, you don't have to deport them to anywhere - you turn them away at the border so they return to where they immediately came from
[i]so they return to where they immediately came from [/i]
Calais? I can see the French loving that.
[i]the courts would decide[/i]
but there would need to be, expressed as a law and (if it was a criminal law) beyond reasonable doubt, what proof someone would need to provide that they weren't guilty. Which completely reverses the entire British justice system.
Courts aren't equipped to prove innocence, only guilt.
and where would these people stay whilst the court and (presumably) appeal process was ongoing? You couldn't just turn them away at the border it could take months for a court process to reach a conclusion.
oooh, look;
[i]London Mayor Boris Johnson to seek election as Conservative MP in Uxbridge & South Ruislip[/i]
what a coincidence...
Do I think it is a good idea? No, but if the theoretical alternative is a couple of hundred battle hardened extremists returning to the country determined to try and destroy or destabilise our democratic society, I'm not sure I just want them waived through at passport control either.
Should he be allowed to say it? Yes, of course, we are in some sort of democracy and it has prompted us to debate the idea and him. And mostly agree that we don't like either very much.
Who would determine it?@kona the courts would decide
Eh? Surely the courts would only get involved once someone was prosecuted for not having permission? Are you suggesting that people would have to apply to the courts for permission to travel somewhere?
@kona - no I meant the courts would be involved in an appeal/challenge for someone who was refused permission to return. No one is being refused permission to travel in the proposal.
Downing Street has distanced itself from Boris's comments. Leaks emerging of the constituency Boris will stand for election at for the 2015 election.
So does STW think Boris's suggestion is more or less "extreme" than the detention orders introduced by the last Labour Government ?
Calais? I can see the French loving that.
@wasawas but that's the system we already have, if you don't have the proper travel documents inc Visa you are sent back to where you came from. From what I understand most of the ISIS recruits enter Syria from Turkey having traveled there directly or via Germany or elsewhere.
[i]No one is being refused permission to travel in the proposal.[/i]
You thought they were a few hours ago?
[i]If they got permission first that would be OK for them to return...[/i]
There's no easy answer to any of this but to strip someone of citizenship, refuse them entry and make them stateless because they can't prove what they were doing whilst out the country seems an unreasonable solution to the problem.
[edit]
[i]that's the system we already have[/i]
but they did have travel documents when they left the country - namely a UK passport. You don't need a visa to come home. If you refuse entry and they've travelled overland through France where would you return them to?
So does STW think Boris's suggestion is more or less "extreme" than the detention orders introduced by the last Labour Government ?
Holding someone during investigations isn't new or unique to the last government. You figure out whether it is more or less extreme than guilty until proven innocent.
All governments exploit the perceived threat from terrorism to introduce draconian legislation, that's certainly been the case since going back to the start of The Troubles.
Johnson wants to now take it to a completely new level.
What he's proposing is to throw out the cornerstone that the entire British justice system is built on. The presumption of innocence, and the onus of the prosecution to prove guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt
So... Ever so slightly more serious than control orders, yes.
Are there any more glaringly obvious criteria you're struggling with?
@wasawas - I have said all along the proposal would be to prevent some returning to the UK, I posted the same view last week before Boris even spoke.
@ernie I am not hung up on the innocent until proven guilty point, I think that's a red herring. Someone prevented from returning to the UK could challenge that decision. So do you think the detention orders are less draconian than the Boris proposal ?
The threat from terrorism is not perceived, its very very real.
@binners, the control orders put you in prison without a trial. Boris's proposal says you are free to remain abroad at liberty as long as you like.
You're really struggling with this idea, aren't you? What that effectively does is render people stateless by removing their citizenship, with the onus being on the 'defendent' to provide proof (whatever that means in these circumstances) that you shouldn't.
At the end of the day, the whole idea of scrapping the very foundations of the entire legal system (and with it the principles of living in a democracy) for the sake of a few hundred nutters, who may, or may not return to this country, is absolutely preposterous, and only a complete idiot would seriously advocate it!
[i]The threat from terrorism is not perceived, its very very real.[/i]
Says who?
A massive industry/military complex who vested interest are served by conflict? A group of "terrorists" making a you tube video? Secret services determined to use the "threat" of terror to massively increase the scope of their powers?
There are very few reliable untainted sources to be able to make any sort of value judgement
^ I like nickc, clever bloke
the theoretical alternative is a couple of hundred battle hardened extremists returning to the country determined to try and destroy or destabilise our democratic society
Talking of theories...
If the UK was the enemy in the 1st place, why have they gone overseas to fight?
FEAR is an easy virus to cultivate and more deadly than Ebola will ever be.
If there was the levels of organization or threat that the media suggests, then terrorist attacks would already be a common occurence.
Of course, now the FBI are coming to 'save our asses', expect an imminent terrorist attack...
Wonder if being a crisis actor pays well?
The threat from terrorism is not perceived, its very very real.
But not quite as big as the threat posed to cyclists by other road users. I've yet to be catapulted through the air by a terrorist who hasn't seen me.
What Johnson is suggesting is the suspension of Habeas corpus and incarceration without trial.
Courts aren't set up to prove innocence so presumably these people will just be thrown in jail as soon as they step off the plane.
No risk of that going wrong is there?
@binners please try and focus on the issues and not the name calling. I a not struggling with my point of view at all, nor with yours as I can see where we differ. I do not believe our entire legal system as being under threat by this proposal and I see the threat from inaction as being more significant.
@nickc do you not see the linkage to 9/11 and 7/7 here ? Or the more recent murder of Jews in Belgium by a jihadist returning from Syria. These are people full of hate intending to attack whoever takes their fancy including fellow Muslims who are not from their branch of Islam. They are travelling to Syria to gain military style training and to further intensify their beliefs.
@jive the enemy is anyone they see threatening Islam, this started out with the Syrian government who was killing their brothers, then morphed into attacking other Muslim groups, then Yizadis, then Christians. However, the individuals and organisations concerned have identified the West as a key enemy.
the enemy is anyone they see threatening Islam, this started out with the Syrian government who was killing their brothers, then morphed into attacking other Muslim groups, then Yizadis, then Christians. However, the individuals and organisations concerned have identified the West as a key enemy.
When are they coming to get us ?
And how do I get to vote so that this Boris geezer becomes Prime Minister ?
Good job Jambo, I'm properly scared now...
be careful, don't sniff the flowers in case there's bees and they can be deadly!!
Talking of 9/11, what was going on with WTC7?
Why did Urban Moving Systems get huge government funding?
Why wouldn't they take lie detector tests?
Why did Dominic Suter leave the U.S.?
To be fair, having an avowed Zionist struggle with the concept of a 'proportionate' response to terrorism, doesn't really come as a massive surprise to me 😆
As for these people being stateless, they have said they want to fight for and live in an Islamic State, many have burned their passports. The proposal just formalises that wish.
What Johnson is suggesting is the suspension of Habeas corpus and [b]incarceration without trial[/b].
No it is not, as I posted before he is saying they cannot come back to the UK, they are free to remain at their liberty outside of the UK. Also as I posted before the detention orders introduced by Labour where more akin to incarceration without trial.
@binners, there is no such thing as proportionate. I recall seeing a quote in the Imperial War Museum from a British WW2 veteran along the lines, "War is an act of violence and anything other than extreme violence is naive". Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki proportionate ?
Sod all this pussy-footing around - gps tracked chips implanted into all UK citizens so we can all be traced 24/7.
If you've nothing to hide what could possibly be wrong with that.......
😉