Terrorism

no id just expect a thorough investigation to involve interviewing the guy to see if he could offer any further info

Maybe they did, if so what info is he going to offer? He’s hardly going to say, oh yes, in a few years I’m going to run a few people over and knife some others.

Let’s say they didn’t but in future they thoroughly investigate every report. They find he’s a self confessed Islamist. They find a kitchen cupboard with knives. They find he has a car.

He’s commited no offence.

What then?

Internment? How will that play in the Muslim community?

….and once word gets round that every report results in some serious consiquence you get into the liklihood of Islamists reporting all the people in their local mosque as being Islamists to further foster mistrust. Crackdowns on Muslims is *exactly* what militant Islams wants.

They find he’s a self confessed Islamist.

What do you mean by that? A follower of Islam? Somebody with religious beliefs?

1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

a person who believes strongly in Islam, especially one who believes that Islam should influence political systems

Maybe they had what they needed?

quite possibly but in the light of the admission that the police dont follow up every lead they receive to the hotline, it seems that Prevent is not working

about 1-30 in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08sks0t#play

also touches on the funding received from Saudi etc and the government surpressing investigation into that

I thought this thread was started because people’s religion was attacking us!

I started the thread, it wasn’t. It was primarily started to get the tasteless bickering out of the London/Manchester attack threads.

What do you mean by that? A follower of Islam? Somebody with religious beliefs?

I once read a book called “The Islamist” by Ed Husain. From that I gathered ‘Islamist’ meant “Militant Extreme Violent Muslim” if it doesn’t I’m using the word in the wrong context. (As is Ed.)

but in the light of the admission that the police dont follow up every lead they receive to the hotline, it seems that Prevent is not working

But he was followed up, so even though Prevent IS working, at getting people to report extremists so they can be investigated, that investigation can’t actually stop them doing anything

And we all saw the uproar over control orders – the same people now screaming that more police are needed to ‘investigate’ terror suspects are the ones who were screaming that control orders were a breach of human rights.

I think part of the problem is that groups like ‘Liberty’ make the goverment’s job much harder. I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

I have nothing to hide but plenty to fear.
How about your bank details being accidentally leaked?

I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

Please share your hard drive, your business files and anything else we might like to look at. While you’re at it your bank statements please. You don’t have anything to hide do you?
What levels of snooping do the police not have that they need?

But he was followed up, so even though Prevent IS working, at getting people to report extremists so they can be investigated, that investigation can’t actually stop them doing anything

Speculation again. What was reported, what did they find? What did they conclude? What was the outcome? What happened between the report and now?

Come on you have all the answers

I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

And I’m amazed that some sheeple will so willingly give away their privacy.

Why should the government have carte blanche over private data? We look be in a democracy, not a totalitarian state. If your rather that, then please feel free to **** off to North Korea, they know how to deal with suspected enemies of the state people who disagree with them there.

So, now you think we need 20,000 more police to investigate people, but you don’t want them to actually be able to investigate anything about them 🙄

Please share your hard drive, your business files and anything else we might like to look at. While you’re at it your bank statements please. You don’t have anything to hide do you?
What levels of snooping do the police not have that they need?

Oh dear. Didn’t take long to find one.

ninfan – Member
So, now you think we need more police to investigate people, but you dint want them to actually be able to investigate anything about them

it must be hard to make it through a day with so much confusion in there, maybe have a lie down. What can the Police, Security service etc do with a warrant at present? Do you actually know?

Oh dear. Didn’t take long to find one.

Find one what? If you’ve nothing to hide I’m sure you’ll be quite happy to share your browsing history with us, especially that half hour whilst your wife was out but you forgot to enable incognito mode…

What levels of snooping do the police not have that they need?
Simple for the armchair experts.

mitsumonkey – Member
I thought this thread was started because people’s religion was attacking us!

Only the hard of thinking think this.

And we all saw the uproar over control orders – the same people now screaming that more police are needed to ‘investigate’ terror suspects are the ones who were screaming that control orders were a breach of human rights.

Are they?

Or are you projecting your screaming about everything at the rest of us?

flanagaj – Member
I think part of the problem is that groups like ‘Liberty’ make the goverment’s job much harder. I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

You assume the state is benign and will always be. It’s not, and it can easily get much worse. Democracy is perfectly capable of installing some pretty odious governments, you/I/we need protections from that.

flanagaj – Member
I think part of the problem is that groups like ‘Liberty’ make the goverment’s job much harder. I am amazed how many people have an issue with state snooping. Surely, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

Other than that state slipping too far right or left or being viewed as a soft target for whatever indiscretion of the moment that surfaces on someones agenda. God haven’t you people tolerated enough intrusion, it’s bad enough I can’t go from A to B without being surveiled God knows how many times by CCTV or that I end up being charged for being in posession of a ‘dangerous dog’ thanks to the vigilance of a snoopy neighbour who’s dog disagreed with mine on my own land. Or that if I travel at 3 mph over the limit I end up paying for a Government civil obedience course, or if I ride my m’cycle with the wind blowing over the bit where my curly locks used to be I get fined, never mind if I openly preach religious disagreement or talk out of turn about those with sexual preferences different to mine, or refuse to bake a particular kind of cake…

You assume the state is benign and will always be. It’s not, and it can easily get much worse

Another aspect is giving all that capability to the state also hopes they remain competent in protecting (they also including the almost inevitable private sector contractors).
The recent wannacry problems show the flaws in this.

seosamh77 – Member
You assume the state is benign and will always be. It’s not, and it can easily get much worse. Democracy is perfectly capable of installing some pretty odious governments, you/I/we need protections from that.

Very true.

Usually the first steps are disarming the public, restricting free association, and clamping down on free speech. All of which are easy to do if first you can show that this is being done in response to a threat.

But I have been wondering about the nature of Muslim terrorism. They seem to eschew democracy yet are relying on democracy to achieve their ends, ie kill enough random people so that the public puts pressure on the politicians to change course. It just seems to rally the public behind the policies.

Surely it would be more effective if they were more precisely targetted? Aim at the political leaders they feel were oppressing them rather than random members of the public or blowing up a Tory convention like the Irish did. In other words behave as their predecessors, the assassins did.

Is there a strategy or is it just people exploding with frustration? (pun not intended).

A few years ago everyone was condemning the “Muslim community” for not doing enough, failing to condemn terrorism, turning a blind eye and more.

Now it seems like the “Muslim Community” has been reporting these awful men to the authorities, but they have then failed to intervene in any useful way.

Am I alone in feeling disappointed by this?

Now it seems like the “Muslim Community” has been reporting these awful men to the authorities, but they have then failed to intervene in any useful way.

Am I alone in feeling disappointed by this?
based on??? Seriously what insight do you have to one of the 3 rough scenarios
They didn’t bother?
They didn’t have enough resources to follow them all up?
When they looked at it there was nothing to follow up on?

They didn’t bother?
They didn’t have enough resources to follow them all up?
When they looked at it there was nothing to follow up on?

whichever one may or may not be true he can still feel dissapointed that it didnt prevent the attacks

they have then failed to intervene in any useful way.

What intervention do you want?

We’re told Islamist should be “investigated” we’re told there should be an “intervention”.

Exactly what?

Internment is counterproductive at the best of times, but internment base on one accusation?

whichever one may or may not be true he can still feel dissapointed that it didnt prevent the attacks

Well yes, but if he wants crediblity he has to say what action he wants taken against Islamic Militants who haven’t committed a crime (yet).

The silence on this topic suggests nobody has an answer to this that’s any better than what is currently happening.

From an opinion piece in today’s paper by Lord Carlile – former LiB Dem peer and most recently the independent scrutiniser of anti-terror legislation:

“Last Friday I attended a hustings meeting at which the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, spoke for the Labour Party. Incoherent and incomprehensible might be too generous a description of her performance. The notion that she could lead the Home Office should leave us all in frozen apprehension.

Mr Corbyn appears to believe, with extreme naïveté, that it is possible to negotiate with organisations which inspire the belief that it is desirable to bomb and knife women and children on a night out. This is extremely disappointing. I have known successive Labour home secretaries who understood the issue and acted on the merits.”

Do we all feel safer now?

The question of what to do at home with people guilty of no crime is probably the most pointless. Either we make “religious in charge of a Quran” a crime or we have to actually prosecute people for committing offences. It’s pretty tough to prove that someone who was looking at dodgy twitter/facebook/youtube stuff has intent to commit a terror attack until they take some steps towards actually DOING something.

The average pub/MTB forum is full of blowhard gobshites who reckon they could take on <INSERT PERSON/GROUP OF CHOICE> with one arm tied behind their backs and I assume the average mosque/madrassa/islamic social media site or forum is the same. If we locked everyone up who suggested they’d piss in someone’s shoes, batter or murder someone, half of the UK would be locked up. Which, given some threads on here recently, may not be a bad thing.

The silence on this topic suggests nobody has an answer to this that’s any better than what is currently happening.

And exactly what is currently happening?

I’ve got a good idea – Why don’t we stop all people from committing crimes by getting to them before they commit the crime (murderers, rapists, dangerous driver and all).

Sounds ridiculous to say that doesn’t it….

Sounds ridiculous to say that doesn’t it….

In the absence of a crystal ball or a time machine, I’m afraid so.

Internment is counterproductive at the best of times, but internment base on one accusation?

Agreed, but if as it seems we are, at war with Islamic State, it would seem perfectly reasonable to intern those fighters that return here, at least until such time that they were declared no longer a threat. Every other war, the nationals that remained here were subjected to just such treatment. I mean if you follow the logic using a WW2 analogy we’d have been allowing Germans to travel freely here throughout the duration without let or hindrance.

Not that it is an answer, but it is a Band-Aid, better than screening and watching which I assume is what is currently going on.

kerley – Member
I’ve got a good idea – Why don’t we stop all people from committing crimes by getting to them before they commit the crime (murderers, rapists, dangerous driver and all).

Sounds ridiculous to say that doesn’t it….

We need Tom…

The Belgian government tries their citizens in absentia when it’s suspected that they have gone to fight for IS or another fundamentalist group. On their return they are able to appeal the conviction or, in some cases, retrospectively get some time off if they cooperate with intelligence services. Not that this has prevented Belgians going off to fight or get involved in terrorist attacks of course, so perhaps internment wouldn’t work either.

And exactly what is currently happening?

Innocent until proven guilty. It’s worked quite well in liberal democracies for a very long time.

I’ve got a good idea – Why don’t we stop all people from committing crimes by getting to them before they commit the crime

Good idea, you could pick a euphenism to describe it like “investigate” or “intervention”.

intern those fighters that return here, at least until such time that they were declared no longer a threat.

That’s a very different case to what’s being discussed here which is (say) me phoning up the Police to tell them my mate is an Islamist plus he has a car and a kitchen with knives in it and an ‘intervention’ automatically taking place before he’s actually done anything illegal.

Incidently, I accept we’re at ‘war’ with Isis (we must be, we keep bombing them) but I remain to be convinced that the hopegrown terrorists are anything more than dissaffected weirdo criminals.

I watched Good Kill and it very much seemed like they were killing people before they did anything (or if they had done something, before evidence had been acquired) based on probabilities of them being terrorists calculated using an algorithm.

It’s a fictional film based on real accounts from wikileaks I think.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/death-from-above-nia-csa-skynet-algorithm-drones-pakistan

Our governments have been taking action. Effectively attempting to ring fence the middle east by force and soft means, something that is still ongoing and not fully realised. Reducing our need for oil, which unfortunately is very difficult to do without hamstringing the economy and in the face of competition from emerging economies, who will grab growth by any means with both hands. Furthermore oil producers recognising the situation and slashing prices.

Further high level military action is inevitable now public support has been firmed up.

outofbreath – Member
intern those fighters that return here, at least until such time that they were declared no longer a threat.
That’s a very different case to what’s being discussed here which is (say) me phoning up the Police to tell them my mate is an Islamist plus he has a car and a kitchen with knives in it and an ‘intervention’ automatically taking place before he’s actually done anything illegal.

Incidently, I accept we’re at ‘war’ with Isis (we must be, we keep bombing them) but I remain to be convinced that the hopegrown terrorists are anything more than dissaffected weirdo criminals.

Yes I get that, and fundamentally I would be opposed to any kind of internment based purely on suspicion or as you point out potential nuisance/vicious/unjustified accusation. These people have passports they travel to hotspots, it’s not easy but it is possible to directly link them to having acted with ‘the enemy’ and there are plenty of laws covering that so no need for another raft of legislation which mark my words is about to descend upon us.