Abedi came to this country as an asylum seeker, and none of the three London Bridge suicide bombers were born here either. They take what they can get and then stab in the back. May is promising to throw out European Human Rights laws, so we go back to English courts exercising good old common sense as before
Abedi was born in Manchester. His parents came from Libya. May isn't promising to throw out European Human Rights laws, which have nothing to do with the EU and which Winston Churchill sponsored. May is arguing, apparently, for 'derogation' of some elements of the laws if necessary while remaining a part of the ECHR. At times like this it's important that we get our facts right. Murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, and preparing an act of terrorism all carry up to life sentences already, regardless of European law. I'm not sure we need more laws, we may need the existing ones used better. Once we leave the EU we will certainly be able to deport people more easily (according to David Davies it will be the first law to go) and we can deport any national of a foreign country (which I think includes people with dual nationality) who commits a crime here. We have Temporary Exclusion Orders to stop returning Jihadis with British passports from entering the country unless they agree to strict supervision (why the **** we would ask them is beyond me). This power has been used just once. Theresa May replaced Control Orders, which included house arrest and forced relocation, with the much weaker Terror Prevention and Investigation Measures, which have been used 7 times apparently (because they are used on people who the security services don't want tried in open court for 'national security' reasons). Control Orders were used about 50 times 2005-2010. I think we have the powers, human rights is a red herring. What we need are the resources to use them, and to vet immigrants and asylum seekers much more thoroughly.
This is one of the best posts I've seen in ages and more accurate than you know Seagull. There's so many dimensions to what's happening in the western world right now. I often hear people asking "why is this happening". Of course there's many reasons but seagull has touched on the main one above. Three decades of failed foreign policy (mainly American) has given extremists all the ammunition they needed. We in the western world have become oblivious or ambivalent to the countless innocent Muslim people who have been killed, wounded or displaced directly due to western intervention. Countries like Libia, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt etc have all been left completely ****ed up by failed policy. Any do you know what, most western people are either not aware or couldn't give a toss. Western media is a scandal. Privately owned and censored beyond belief. I'd ask you to conduct a simple trial with an open mind. Watch Al Jazeera news (English) for one hour every night for a week. They're non bias and report factual news. Then watch BBC or SKY. The difference is frightening. By the end of one week you'll get some understanding of how many innocent people are killed on a daily basis (directly or indirectly) by western military intervention. Women and children killed on a daily basis. Schools hit in error, hospitals blown up and on and on. Millions of once innocent people have been left with nothing. Does anybody really think we can do this without consequences? Really? In every walk of life there is extremeists. We have just made it very easy for these people to radicalise young vulnerable people. What's happening now is disgusting. Innocent people being openly targeted. What's the answer? I know why it's happening, (Whether you agree or not) but I'm not sure what the answer is. I know we can't allow this to continue. For me I think the western world must make a genuine united stance and make the Muslim world responsible for their own people. I don't see enough Muslim leaders condemning these horrific attacks. Muslim leaders, political, religious etc must take more responsibility for their own. We must make them do this. We can't let this develop into a them and us but sadly I think the wheels are slowly in motion in this direction. Trump or May selling billions of dollars of weapons to these countries only shows how shallow we are. Let's make a united stance. A genuine effort to force these people to sort their own ****e out because any further intervention from the western world only fuels the next generation of these idiots.
Make all Muslims wear a star and half moon badge on the pockets! I think they did something like that else where, not sure how that turned out!!!
now now durbar we cant do that but we can make them all live in enclaves where they don't have to like us or speak our language they can talk amongst themselves about how they hate our western way of life and wouldn't it be better to live in an Islamic country have they not heard of planes and one way tickets
A 38-year-old man has been arrested at Heathrow Airport in connection with the Manchester Arena terror attack.
me of reading about I know Kiwi , but the way some people are talking on here it reminds of reading about Germany in the 1930s
What we need is the balls to use those powers. Far too much pussy footing around to appease the ****ing PC brigade IMO.
I thought it was nick cleggs liberals that forced an end to control orders when they were in coalition?
Point taken. Maybe I let my anger get the better of me. I'm simply thrashing around in the dark searching for an answer to this madness.
I'm doing this from memory, but I think you're sort-of right. The original legislation was well-meaning but flawed. Innocent people had their lives turned upside down based on intelligence information that couldn't be disclosed in court and wouldn't stand up as proper evidence. People who were the subject of control orders often couldn't be told about the information that was being used to give grounds for the order - so they couldn't explain why it was incorrect or maybe even malicious. Secret "embedded" informants can settle personal scores if the opportunity arises and the legal oversight is weak. So, yes, the 2010 coalition scrapped it and brought in something else. Which the security forces don't seem to be using, if I understand it correctly, but I don't know why.
We're all in the same club. I thought most of your suggestions a few days ago were worth looking at a bit closer. It's getting the balance right - not writing bad laws because we're all angry versus writing laws that won't work or do the job. I'm hearing comments from ex-police people I know saying that existing legislation isn't being used properly because there aren't enough people available to do it. They really don't like Mrs May.
Well spotted I was sneaking some more anti May propaganda in. I don't think she or the Tories can be let off the hook though, they were the major coalition partner. And she's had two years to bring tougher legislation to Parliament since the end of the coalition. And as Sheff has noted, the fact that some of these powers have been barely used either points to a lack of will or indicates that they are not the right tools for the job. Or as Dipper says, there aren't enough people to use them effectively. Who knows if using them more would be effective, but we should be able to find out why they aren't used as much as we would expect. I really do think the human rights stuff is a red herring which has been thrown in for the election campaign. The fact that it hasn't been mentioned until May is under intense pressure for her record on security makes me pretty confident that this is politics not security motivated, a smokescreen to get away from cutbacks. Kier Starmer, who as ex DPP I would actually like to listen to on this subject, being talked all over by John Humphreys on the radio at the moment. Starmer saying that in his direct experience the Human Rights Act did not get in the way of acting against terrorism. Of course that may well be a politically motivated stance too. But I do think his point that the problem is not the powers that we have to punish terrorists but how we identify and stop them early is valid. As I have said, I want the gloves to come off, if some human rights legislation makes it harder for us to make ourselves safer, let's look at it. But I need more substance than the campaign trail sloganeering we got yesterday. Human rights are not dirty words, for me at least.
That's fine mate. I think both feeling angry and wanting answers are something we all share at this time
Thought provoking stuff Nuts. Henry Kissinger plus Islam equals a ****ing mess. If walking away would solve it I'd go for it instantly. But memories are long and the internal conflicts of Islam are Byzantine and always prone to explode. The point of studying history is to avoid repeating the old mistakes, a lesson we seemingly find it impossible to learn.
To an extent, it is due to our history in the middle east that has caused the problem. We are in no way innocent in the west. Look back to the crusades if you will. We attempted to enforce Christianity on the population as far back as the 10th Century. Bring it bang up to date and Blair's illegal war. Is it any wonder we are being targeted? I am not in any way condoning the actions of terrorism, I am merely trying to understand it.
Beth, I know what I posted was incredibly simplistic, and of course has no simple solution. But the likes of Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza al-Masri being able to preach their bile without the ability to stop them because it may infringe their human rights makes my blood boil.
? Both are in prison, Abu Hamza since 2006 and for life, for precisely that. We took our time, but we and the Yanks got them.
