I agree. I am not talking about setting up internment camps or locking people up on "reasonable suspicion" however control orders where they can go about normal day to day stuff with restrictions is not being locked up. You want us to forget about trying to cut the source out and wait until they do something. Get 20,000, 40,000, 100,000 more police on the streets to "react" when something happens rather than just deal with it before it happens.
We are not discussing Labour here. We are discussing how a once pro-EU party has been hijacked by right-wing infiltrators masquerading as Conservatives. It is totally abhorrent that a mainstream political party has had one of its main policies devised by the papers that I mentioned and endorsed by UKIP. Cameron totally negated the position of his own party with regard to its stance on Europe and allowed the likes of Bill Cash, John Redwood and so on to build up a head of steam within the party, instead of flinging them out as he should have done. It is a pity that the more serious papers like the Guardian, Times, Independent and in particular the Telegraph did not pick up on this situation. The Conservative party is only Conservative in name having adopted UKIP's main policy, one endorsed by AfD, the Dutch Freedom Party, Respect with George Galloway. It is totally out of step with other centre-right parties around Europe, and frankly this is utterly reprehensible.
Yep, you're right. We can't watch them all, all of the time, that's never going to be possible. In fact we probably can't prevent further terrorist attacks in future, all we can do is minimise the likelihood and equip the police and emergency services to deal with it when it happens. Locking people up without trial is only going to create more fanatics. And the abolition of such a fundamental Civil Liberty threatens our way of life far more, in my opinion, than terrorism does. It's not a price worth paying. I fear a government with no respect for the rule of law far more than I fear a few fanatics plotting mayhem on the dark web, personally. A nutter in a van can kill me but he can't win. A government willing to lock people up without trial, that's a victory for tyranny over liberty and something I will resist til my dying breath.
You said: IF you go online you will already see lots of hate speech from muslims that supports these acts or is racism against whites etc. Lots of "dirty white British that wash once a week and eat dirty pork" etc. There is a difference between sympathising and actually encouraging people to do the same. If someone clicks like or "good, the deserved it" then that is sick. If they post "it is your duty to do more of this" then that is encouragement. The whole "will be scared to speak out against the government" part is not borne out by facts. People close to Choudhary suspected Choudhary of being an informer because he was getting away with what he did. People this week close to Butt have been telling the TV cameras (blurry image and voice disguised) that they told the police about him. 1 in 4 British muslims sympathised with the Hebdo attack. 32% refuse to condemn those who take part in terrorist activity. Only 1 in 3 would tip off the police if someone close to them was becoming close to radical groups. Well some of those 1 in 3 (more than 1 person told the police) did inform on Butt. Cases of what happening? I am saying my mate protected his (and my) Indian friend from racist abuse and attack. The fact he was a bit harder than the racist is by the by. He got tagged, the racist didn't. The police have no problem tagging people if it suits them but if it is becomes more sensitive, i.e. if they had to decide whether to tag a muslim person, they know that the lawyers will circle for an opportunity for getting their names known in a more high profile case and the police and CPS will think twice, thrice and more about whether to caution instead.
Cameron was an entryist and no conservative. He and Blair should both have been Lib Dems. You are going on about the Tories without noticing the exact same things can be said of Labour who adopted Lib Dem policies mixed with right of Tory economics under Blair, something Cameron continued with. You are sounding like a Labour activist that only bothers about soundbites that sound good. The current Tory model is polling as high as Cameron despite the current leaders uselessness BECAUSE they are where they should be. Yours and the media's constant warbling about UKIP is not working at all. The Tories are on Tory ground. UKIP were the ones that tried to move left into Tory territory and failed. Cameron tried to move intop Blair territory and failed to get the success he should have easily been able to achieve and you like the media and left+centre so called progressive parties are just throwing out soundbites that mean nothing again. Always going on about Kenneth Clarke being a shining beacon despite him never reading the EU treaties he is so vocal about for years after he had been spouting on about how super dooper they were. We voted out, we are leaving. That will win today for the Tories despite May's inadequacy and once we're out then we can start voting for policies again. Maybe Labour will put out something a little less fairytale like next time and I'll vote for it but this election Brexit "trumps" everything else.
"People close to Choudhary suspected Choudhary of being an informer because he was getting away with what he did. People this week close to Butt have been telling the TV cameras (blurry image and voice disguised) that they told the police about him. 1 in 4 British muslims sympathised with the Hebdo attack. 32% refuse to condemn those who take part in terrorist activity. Only 1 in 3 would tip off the police if someone close to them was becoming close to radical groups. Well some of those 1 in 3 (more than 1 person told the police) did inform on Butt." How is this speaking out against the government? surely this is supporting the government??? i don't understand your logic. this only seems to support my case as far as i can see. Incidents of people saying "you fing muslim" to Muslims. Changing the law wouldn't make an issue less sensitive, it just ignores the sensitivity. Think of WHY its sensitive and you might understand why this will cause hostility among more hardline muslims and exacerbate the cause of extremism and creation of IS preachers in the UK.
So this election is all about "Brexit" Do you really think it will strengthen Mrs May's negotiating position? It won't and the UK Government is not really going to be in a strong negotiating regarding the trade deals it seeks. I look forward to a total collapse of the talks and nothing getting done. It means UK cannot exit EU!
You said people will be less likely to go to police if they think they will be done for sympathising. I am saying why would they? Just because they are one of the 1 in 4 does not mean they are going around telling people to take action or going to do it themselves. Sympathisers have been telling the police. The police have done nothing because they are hamstrung to do anything about it.
We shall see at the end of the day. If the blues win then I look forward to exiting the EU without giving in to every one of their demands. If the reds win I will await the brown envelopes flooding through my door telling me about the windfall in my benefits and DLA for the boys etc.
Firstly, telling somebody to commit a crime is a crime. Muslim or no. you keep saying they are hamstrung by human rights laws but so far you've not provided anything specific that doesn't just seem like lack of evidence and a good lawyer. (just like how other public figures seem to get away with things) You've not even mentioned which human rights. You have provided examples of Muslims being convicted though. Anyway let me use a separate example of what i'm trying to say. Lets say you believe that it should be okay to sleep with 13 year olds but you won't break the law and just want to change it, would you not think being open and protesting about it will increase your chances of being thought of as a *****phile anyway? Especially when you could be put on the child offenders list based solely on reasonable suspicion? Effectively it is a hindrance to our democracy and will make them feel like their don't have a voice to express their views and will make them feel less a part of our society. Its not feeling part of our society that i believe is the cause of home grown extremism. (although i still think the only way to stop it is to deal with the issues overseas) And your changes are far too general that it will only affect extremists. it would open the way to a fundamental reduction in our democracy.
Is it an offence to view child pornography or have such material in your possession? Is it an offence to view Islamic videos or have such material in your possession? The former results in a vast amount of prosecutions. Not for doing anything but for viewing what someone else did. Not many custodial but they are prosecuted. The latter does not: "Scotland Yard said today viewing the film showing James Foley's murder by an Islamic State (IS) extremist may be illegal - but experts believe any prosecutions for watching it would be 'absurd'." Yes I know it's the Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ffence-experts-say-prosecutions-unlikely.html Both are cases of viewing something despicable however they are viewing something that someone else did. Are you seriously asking me about wannabe *****philes trying to change the law because they wont do it unless it is legal?
Ex-FBI chief James Comey told Congress that President Donald Trump's comments about him and the FBI were "lies plain and simple". While testifying before a Senate panel, Mr Comey said the president was wrong to denigrate the agency and its leadership. He was also "confused" by the "shifting explanations" from the White House for his sacking. Mr Comey said Mr Trump had repeatedly told him he was doing a "great" job. But he added he understood the president has the right to fire an FBI director at any time. When asked by the Senate Intelligence Committee whether the president tried to stop the Russia investigation he was conducting, Mr Comey said: "Not to my understanding, no." He said he it was not for him to say whether Mr Trump's actions were an obstruction of justice. Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the committee's vice chairman, pressed Mr Comey on why he decided to keep record of his conversations with Mr Trump. Mr Comey said it was a matter of circumstances, the subject matter and the "person I was interacting with". "I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting" he told the panel. Mr Comey was leading one of several Russia investigations before Mr Trump fired him. US intelligence agencies believe Russia interfered in the US election and they are investigating alleged links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. But there is no known evidence of collusion and President Donald Trump has dismissed the story as "fake news".
I actually didnt realise it was an offence to watch extremist videos. Ive watched extremist material. It's been on my pc. I guess that means I'm getting an order too It is absurd to convict somebody for that. Anyway, no I am not asking you to discuss *****philes. My point was about integration. And tbh reading back you had just understood me again anyway so it was pointless making it. I'm going to give up on trying to explain the logic behind it for now, it will take forever at this pace and I don't have the energy left. We'll have more important political stuff for this thread later today. But to sum up, I think we should be trying to integrate them the best we can into society because the more they feel part of it the less likely they are to attack it. I think your law changes are untargeted and are just going to add fertiliser to your terrorist tree, not cut it down. Only methods to really deal with terrorism are outside our borders however.
It's so hard for the police, they have to basically catch the guy whilst making the bomb. If they act too quickly then they show their hand. Catching a guy that wants to run over people in a van is impossible as he has committed no crime until that moment he mounts the kerb. One possible way is that both incidents that involved a van, have been with hired vans. Liberals will probably get in a state, but there must be a way that anyone on a terrorist list can not hire a van, or the police are informed if they do
I totally agree with you that we should be trying to integrate them the best we can into society. With that in mind it is not a good idea to have different rules due to sensitivities making a "them and us" situation. I don't think it is illegal to "view" islamic videos. If it is it shouldn't be. However it should be illegal to share it, download it to your hard-drive (and I don't mean in the cache from viewing it) and most definitely illegal to share it with a "wink" or comment celebrating or promoting it. There should be one law that applies and is applied to everybody no matter who they are or any sensitivities that surround it. There shouldn't be any cases at all of decisions not to take something to court because of a demographic because that in itself causes a reverse "them and us."
I assume they hire vans and cars because they think that their plate might be automatically fed into the ANPR and it would flag them the minute they passed a police car? As you say it shouldn't be a problem. Sellers of chemicals like Potassium Nitrate or Ammonium Nitrate have to check details and licences before selling their products now. They also have to make the police aware of any strange buying habits. You can buy it off the net still quite easily but you will most likely get a visit if you don't have a licence. Even if you do have a licence (like me) then you might still get a knock (like I did) if you are buying a strange amount.
