Incident at London Bridge

KitsuneAndy said:
Ironically, some of the suggestions I've seen about punishing people for not liking our way of life, is exactly what IS do.
Click to expand...

Ironically that's all the likes of Isis understand. What solution do you see as being effective. Lock them up indefinitely?
Locking them up for a set amount of time won't change their ways once released.
Deport them. They can continue their reign of terror elsewhere. But that's alright no longer our problem until they attack your holiday resort.
 
Laudrup said:
One of the attackers and other scumbags were on a nationwide television show basically advertising themselves as terrorist recruiters and sympathizers. They couldn't be any more blatant about it. How much money does he need when they are on Channel 4 right in front of our faces? Then to top it all Sadiq Khan is bemoaning 'Islamophobia' and the police seem to have enough resources at looking into what people say on social media but not enough to do anything about extremist Muslims on the TV prancing about London with the black flag? I don't have any faith in him and I don't even live in London.
Click to expand...
Much as I'd sometimes like to lock up people for appearing on reality tv programmes.

Surely even you understand how our justice system works. Gathering evidence that people have committed crimes is the job of the police and security services.

The government provides guidelines for what should be investigated and the budget and priorities for how.

Jeremy Kyle and piers Morgan aren't running the country yet.
 
Phil V said:
Much as I'd sometimes like to lock up people for appearing on reality tv programmes.

Surely even you understand how our justice system works. Gathering evidence that people have committed crimes is the job of the police and security services.

The government provides guidelines for what should be investigated and the budget and priorities for how.

Jeremy Kyle and piers Morgan aren't running the country yet.
Click to expand...

Nobody was asking for them to be locked up for simply appearing on a reality TV show. Can you understand that the decision to downgrade the importance of Khuram Butt was obviously terrible considering he went on to help plan and kill 8 people? So how does throwing more money at it solve that? How many millions more does it take to work out that a man like Khuram Butt on national TV openly worshiping the black flag in a provocative manner, on the streets preaching hate and basically radicalizing and recruiting for Islamic State shouldn't be tolerated? We've seen this merry dance with Anjem Choudary's hate preaching over the years and we're paying for it in blood now.
 
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I guess the choice is lock people up as they may do something and reduce chance of attack or continue with current system which is innocent until proven guilty.

But, allowing people to return from Syria without any questions or surveillance is unforgivable and needs to be addressed.

Lots of people with an opinion on things but little in the way of ideas, sure we are not privy to late amounts of info but whoever is in power is damned if they do and don't. Of course more police would help but maybe they could prioritize a little more!
 
Laudrup said:
Nobody was asking for them to be locked up for simply appearing on a reality TV show. Can you understand that the decision to downgrade the importance of Khuram Butt was obviously terrible considering he went on to help plan and kill 8 people? So how does throwing more money at it solve that? How many millions more does it take to work out that a man like Khuram Butt on national TV openly worshiping the black flag in a provocative manner, on the streets preaching hate and basically radicalizing and recruiting for Islamic State shouldn't be tolerated? We've seen this merry dance with Anjem Choudary's hate preaching over the years and we're paying for it in blood now.
Click to expand...


All of which has absolutely nothing to do with Sadiq Khan, but everything to do with the Home Secretary at the time (Theresa May - now Amber Rudd), the intelligence services, the police and most importantly the lawmakers, who repealed the 2005 Control Orders act in 2011 as it was deemed to have contravened the ECHR.
 
Laudrup said:
Nobody was asking for them to be locked up for simply appearing on a reality TV show. Can you understand that the decision to downgrade the importance of Khuram Butt was obviously terrible considering he went on to help plan and kill 8 people? So how does throwing more money at it solve that? How many millions more does it take to work out that a man like Khuram Butt on national TV openly worshiping the black flag in a provocative manner, on the streets preaching hate and basically radicalizing and recruiting for Islamic State shouldn't be tolerated? We've seen this merry dance with Anjem Choudary's hate preaching over the years and we're paying for it in blood now.
Click to expand...
So you're in favour of people being jailed for 'worshipping a flag'. That definitely doesn't make you at all odd. :p

If you can't understand that more police means more people to carry out investigations, I'm afraid you're probably not best placed to argue any viewpoint. :police:
 
stevelmx5 said:
Great idea genius. Have you ever wondered what creates a terrorist in the first place..
Click to expand...

Do enlighten us, please. If you can only find reasons that occurred in the last few decades then I suggest you dig a bit deeper because it has been going on for about 15 centuries (maybe longer - I got tired of looking into that particular past). Fighting amongst themselves or with outsiders or amongst themselves and outsiders simultaneously. Endless religion based fighting with any excuse for a flare up - no sign of it ever changing. It is on our doorstep now (and among us) because distance is no longer a hindrance.
 
arclight said:
Do enlighten us, please. If you can only find reasons that occurred in the last few decades then I suggest you dig a bit deeper because it has been going on for about 15 centuries (maybe longer - I got tired of looking into that particular past). Fighting amongst themselves or with outsiders or amongst themselves and outsiders simultaneously. Endless religion based fighting with any excuse for a flare up - no sign of it ever changing. It is on our doorstep now (and among us) because distance is no longer a hindrance.
Click to expand...

Looking at the current terrorist threat, the rise of Isis is strengthened by driving a divide between cultures and religions. Every time someone in the Daily Mail runs a headline about 'Jihadists' and blames generic 'muslims' for acts of terrorism, they simply build on the underlying resentment felt by (I'd imagine) a large number of entirely innocent law-abiding people as well as those on the edge of society who are easy targets to be brainwashed into committing horrendous acts of terrorism. For 30 years while the Catholic Terrorists (IRA) were actively blowing up UK cities, the UK Government used internment to arrest those who showed support of or at least failed to be against the actions of the IRA. The fact that the IRA continued to grow in support and deadly attacks whilst that was going on suggests it wasn't a great deterrent and in fact could be argued that it encouraged those on the fringes that already felt disillusioned. As it is, the UK Government has since been forced to pay compensation to those arrested without charge.

If you can't see how an idiotic Western Leader randomly bombing the entire Middle East and killing millions of innocent people, in an attempt to stop several thousand extremists, isn't a stupid idea I'm not sure what is?
 
Last edited:
The law to deal with this already exists: Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 “Part 3A Hatred against persons on religious grounds it's a long boring read but basically this

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) they intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
The authorities just need to use it.
 
Phil V said:
So you're in favour of people being jailed for 'worshipping a flag'. That definitely doesn't make you at all odd. :p.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Germans then, up to three years I believe for waving the Nazi flag around!
 
tarric said:
The law to deal with this already exists: Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 “Part 3A Hatred against persons on religious grounds it's a long boring read but basically this

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) they intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
The authorities just need to use it.
Click to expand...
We should fill a prison wing with the EDL and ISIS sympathisers then. I'm sure it'll turn out great.
 
arclight said:
Do enlighten us, please. If you can only find reasons that occurred in the last few decades then I suggest you dig a bit deeper because it has been going on for about 15 centuries (maybe longer - I got tired of looking into that particular past). Fighting amongst themselves or with outsiders or amongst themselves and outsiders simultaneously. Endless religion based fighting with any excuse for a flare up - no sign of it ever changing. It is on our doorstep now (and among us) because distance is no longer a hindrance.
Click to expand...
yep , if it wasn't for us they would fighting themselves, just like the paddy's, they cannot resist a good punch up..
 
Phil V said:
So you're in favour of people being jailed for 'worshipping a flag'. That definitely doesn't make you at all odd. :p

If you can't understand that more police means more people to carry out investigations, I'm afraid you're probably not best placed to argue any viewpoint. :police:
Click to expand...

A man was arrested for wearing an offensive t-shirt, yet an extremist Muslim jihadi can spout hate and worship the black flag of Islam and he's dismissed. How many more police officers does it take to work out that a guy on national TV in a show called The Jihadi Next Door might be worth taking very seriously as a significant threat? Give me a ball park figure.
 
mark richards said:
yep , if it wasn't for us they would fighting themselves, just like the paddy's, they cannot resist a good punch up..
Click to expand...

Yip, and ISIS declared that even without western countries tampering in the ME we would still be a target for them.

The Russian invasion (partly by invite) of Afghanistan in 1979 - 89 is an interesting study in that they were simply not prepared for the fact that they had intruded in a country that had an ongoing and long standing civil war that was barely possible to understand. Of course, they quickly found themselves in the centre of a mess whereby there was a multitude of participants who were very fluid in that that they could never be replied upon to always keep the same friends and enemies. The ME has that problem. There are groups over there that think nothing of killing people who bring them humanitarian aid. Absolutely friggin' impossible situation.
 
I'm not sure you can get a conviction based on the name of the TV show someone's featured on.
 
Laudrup said:
A man was arrested for wearing an offensive t-shirt, yet an extremist Muslim jihadi can spout hate and worship the black flag of Islam and he's dismissed. How many more police officers does it take to work out that a guy on national TV in a show called The Jihadi Next Door might be worth taking very seriously as a significant threat? Give me a ball park figure.
Click to expand...
Again....
The guidance for priorities comes from the Home Office.

I'm sorry that you're having difficulty understanding the simple concepts here.
 
Phil V said:
Again....
The guidance for priorities comes from the Home Office.

I'm sorry that you're having difficulty understanding the simple concepts here.
Click to expand...

The terrorist was on national TV and his threat assessment downgraded. How you can think more police would have helped is just nonsensical. What would more police have been able to do? How many does it take to work out this guy is a threat? Name a figure.
 
Alastair said:
I'm not sure you can get a conviction based on the name of the TV show someone's featured on.
Click to expand...

Which might be a good quip if he didn't go on to kill 8 people. He's on TV advertising his extremism and we're downgrading him. If by killing 8 people he's not dangerous then who is?
 
Laudrup said:
The terrorist was on national TV and his threat assessment downgraded. How you can think more police would have helped is just nonsensical. What would more police have been able to do? How many does it take to work out this guy is a threat? Name a figure.
Click to expand...
Let's try this slowly, as I can see it's complex for you.
1 when he was on tv he wasn't yet a 'terrorist'. It helps if you can keep the facts in order.

2 his assessment was 'downgraded' because the Police have to prioritise where to put resources.

3 if there were more resources, they'd have to drop less potential cases.

4 the home office decide what the priorities are.

It's not rocket science.

If you want to build a nicer house, it costs more money.

If you want a better car, it costs more money

And if you want a better police force... that's right, it costs more money.

People clinging to the 80's myth that we can have fantastic public services without investment, and then mocking the left for their 'magic money tree' are a special kind of special.
 
Phil V said:
We should fill a prison wing with the EDL and ISIS sympathisers then. I'm sure it'll turn out great.
Click to expand...

You seem to have all the answers for what not to do, so what should we do
 
Phil V said:
Let's try this slowly, as I can see it's complex for you.
1 when he was on tv he wasn't yet a 'terrorist'. It helps if you can keep the facts in order.

2 his assessment was 'downgraded' because the Police have to prioritise where to put resources.

3 if there were more resources, they'd have to drop less potential cases.

4 the home office decide what the priorities are.

It's not rocket science.

If you want to build a nicer house, it costs more money.

If you want a better car, it costs more money

And if you want a better police force... that's right, it costs more money.

People clinging to the 80's myth that we can have fantastic public services without investment, and then mocking the left for their 'magic money tree' are a special kind of special.
Click to expand...
Throwing money at things doesn't necessarily improve them.
 
Phil V said:
Let's try this slowly, as I can see it's complex for you.
1 when he was on tv he wasn't yet a 'terrorist'. It helps if you can keep the facts in order.

2 his assessment was 'downgraded' because the Police have to prioritise where to put resources.

3 if there were more resources, they'd have to drop less potential cases.

4 the home office decide what the priorities are.

It's not rocket science.

If you want to build a nicer house, it costs more money.

If you want a better car, it costs more money

And if you want a better police force... that's right, it costs more money.

People clinging to the 80's myth that we can have fantastic public services without investment, and then mocking the left for their 'magic money tree' are a special kind of special.
Click to expand...

He's on the television in front of millions advertising he's a threat Phil, you don't seem to be grasping this. He wasn't hiding away in the shadows, he was blatantly flaunting his ideology. How much money does it cost to work out he's going to be a danger? Your argument of chucking money at it to solve all ills doesn't add up.
 
Laudrup said:
He's on the television in front of millions advertising he's a threat Phil, you don't seem to be grasping this. He wasn't hiding away in the shadows, he was blatantly flaunting his ideology. How much money does it cost to work out he's going to be a danger? Your argument of chucking money at it to solve all ills doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
He's on the telly shooting his gob off.

I'm not saying 'he's not a threat' that's not my decision.
What I'm saying is that the police made the decision as to whether he was a credible threat. And that decision is based on guidance from the Home Office and how much resource they had (which again is regulated by the HO).

The public sector don't have infinite funds, they make operational decisions based on risk thousands of times a day. Frankly it's amazing they're not catastrophically wrong more often given the cuts to operational budgets.

I'm amazed that people cling into the belief that the public sector is just wasting money and when stuff goes wrong it's just down to incompetence.

How many 'I want to be a pro photographer' threads result in:
Don't spend any money on gear, always use the cheapest sub contractors and just hope nothing goes wrong.

None obviously. Because if you want a job doing well you have to invest.
 
I can't believe the Met had to put out a request for information from the public to identify the source of Ernesto kitchen knives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top