Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Spare me your sanctimonious self righteousness.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Spare me your sanctimonious self righteousness.

Not when you're arguing in favour of concentration camps. Ignore me if you can't stand being called out.

I ignore you because your only solution to this is to sneer at those who are justifyably angry about these repeated attacks and want them to stop. Just as you sneer at everyone you disagree with. You're not worth talking to. I don't know what the hell I'm even doing talking to you now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We're now seriously touting concentration camps (the Boer War kind, not the euphemistic Nazi ones) as a solution to terrorism. Let that sink in for a bit. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

What the feth do you expect? People are angry, upset and blowing off steam. I don't agree with it either, its a stupid idea, but I'm not going to sneer and sanctimoniously condemn people for venting their frustration.

I expect people to have the capacity to reflect on their own actions, at least long enough that they realise just what they are proposing. If that is sanctimonious then fine, so be it

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I ignore you because your only solution to this is to sneer at those who are justifyably angry about these repeated attacks and want them to stop. Just as you sneer at everyone you disagree with. You're not worth talking to. I don't know what the hell I'm even doing talking to you now.

If I had a solution I'd give one. Internment camps is not such a solution. I don't sneer at people because they disagree with me, I sneer at people because their ideas are ill-considered. The idea of putting people in interment camps without due process is such a phenomenally bad idea that it is only worthy of scorn and contempt. It is undermining the very foundations of the society you're so very keen on defending, and it's going to get this thread locked again.

Are "watch lists" in the U.K. the same kind of thing as what we have in the US? If they are then nobody should be relying on them or expecting them to thwart terrorist attacks. You don't have to commit a crime to be on a watchlist, if the govt has evidence of criminal wrongdoing that results in arrests and prosecutions not being put on a watch list. People get put on a watch list because they exhibit possible red flags but haven't done anything criminal. Things like visiting certain countries, being associated with or related to known criminals/terrorists etc. Watch lists serve as a tip off for govt agencies to expend the time and resources to take a closer look at somebody who is on the list if the agency/agents come across such a person. Watch lists don't equate to putting everybody on the watch list under indefinite 24/7 surveillance just in case they try to commit a crime, that wouldn't be legal or affordable. Watch lists will always "fail" because being on a list doesn't make it impossible for a person to commit crimes/terror attacks.

Campaigning will probably be suspended again.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I ignore you because your only solution to this is to sneer at those who are justifyably angry about these repeated attacks and want them to stop. Just as you sneer at everyone you disagree with. You're not worth talking to. I don't know what the hell I'm even doing talking to you now.

There\s one thing being angry and wanting them to stop. And then another wanting to use inhuman ways that violate human rights^freedom. You know the ones UK claims to follow. Whose breaking is slippery slope that easily leads even YOUR freedom being taken.

You want your freedom and human rights revoked?

Unless you fix the issue which makes people go nuts, which your suggestions won't do, only way to prevent even 99%(100% is impossible) is to turn country into one that makes north korea look like liberal democracy. Wanna go that far?

Dare I ask that if the British had the right to bear effective arms, these terrorist cowards would think twice about making attacks with knives, machetes, and vehicles?

I don't mean to offend, I am just frustrated and wonder what else can be done to help our close ally that seems to be at constant threat from weaponized tools at the hands of deranged cowards.

 jasper76 wrote:
Dare I ask that if the British had the right to bear effective arms, these terrorist cowards would think twice about making attacks with knives, machetes, and vehicles?

And exchange all those knives etc into pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns and assault rifles and more bombs.

tneva82 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Dare I ask that if the British had the right to bear effective arms, these terrorist cowards would think twice about making attacks with knives, machetes, and vehicles?

And exchange all those knives etc into pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns and assault rifles and more bombs.

Just hear me out. There is a stasis of sorts in the United States that prevents some crazies from making attacks, because they have the knowledge that doing so will be a fatal decision. Attacking people here with knives and machetes will most likely cost one his life, and everyone knows it, and operates in life with that knowledge.

I do understand what you mean, though. I wish these people did not exist and the British could continue to live without the need for efficient arms and all the negative effects that come with them.

 jasper76 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Dare I ask that if the British had the right to bear effective arms, these terrorist cowards would think twice about making attacks with knives, machetes, and vehicles?

And exchange all those knives etc into pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns and assault rifles and more bombs.

Just hear me out. There is a stasis of sorts in the United States that prevents some crazies from making attacks, because they have the knowledge that doing so will be a fatal decision. Attacking people here with knives and machetes will most likely cost one his life, and everyone knows it, and operates in life with that knowledge.

I do understand what you mean, though. I wish these people did not exist and the British could continue to live without the need for efficient arms and all the negative effects that come with them.

The US has a far higher murder rate than the UK, and a far higher gun death rate. We are clear that all arming citizens would do is increase the number of deaths these terrorists would cause as they would have guns. They knew they were going to die. They attacked a busy area of central London where there were armed police. The risk of armed civilians would have made no difference other than how they were armed.

On a matter related to previous posts, internment is such a bad idea. In Ireland it just caused more violence and radicalised more people. Going down that road again should never happen. If we start removing people's freedom without any due process then our country has broken and the terrorists have won.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Dare I ask that if the British had the right to bear effective arms, these terrorist cowards would think twice about making attacks with knives, machetes, and vehicles?

And exchange all those knives etc into pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns and assault rifles and more bombs.

Just hear me out. There is a stasis of sorts in the United States that prevents some crazies from making attacks, because they have the knowledge that doing so will be a fatal decision. Attacking people here with knives and machetes will most likely cost one his life, and everyone knows it, and operates in life with that knowledge.

I do understand what you mean, though. I wish these people did not exist and the British could continue to live without the need for efficient arms and all the negative effects that come with them.

The US has a far higher murder rate than the UK, and a far higher gun death rate. We are clear that all arming citizens would do is increase the number of deaths these terrorists would cause as they would have guns. They knew they were going to die. They attacked a busy area of central London where there were armed police. The risk of armed civilians would have made no difference other than how they were armed.

Fair enough, I'll go back to lurk mode.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
You know. Watch lists should maybe be a internment camp..

They don,t work.
Back to wartime answers. So be it.

This is what we need but no one will do it.

There are some posters on this forum who occasionally make rather pathetic, über macho statements. This suggestion however goes beyond that. Your ideas are sub-human. I and others will continue to defend the ideals of freedom from both terrorists and your fear and rage.

 jasper76 wrote:
Dare I ask ....

No, you need not dare, piss off with your gun fetish apologetics. This is not an appropriate place.

 Henry wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Dare I ask ....

No, you need not dare, piss off with your gun fetish apologetics. This is not an appropriate place.

I have no gun fetish. And I sincerely hope you all are able to find a more peaceful solution to your problems than what I have proposed.

I think everyone should probably cool off before posting guys, there's a lot of angry words coming out, and with the election just around the corner, I'd rather that these terrorists didn't have the power to overwhelm our good sense.

Everyone needs to think twice before they post.


/mod.

Re: changing the election date. There seems to be a legal problem, even if there was enthusiasm for doing it: it requires a change in law, but given parliament is disbanded for the GE, there are no elected MPs to attempt to table or approve such a change.

I do think it would be wrong to suspend campaigning for more than a day.

This isn't disrespect to the victims. Our system of democracy demands that candidates present themselves and their policies to the questioning of the electorate.

nfe wrote:
Re: changing the election date. There seems to be a legal problem, even if there was enthusiasm for doing it: it requires a change in law, but given parliament is disbanded for the GE, there are no elected MPs to attempt to table or approve such a change.

So the election has to go ahead as planned? I figured as much.

At this rate that's when the next attack will be.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

nfe wrote:
Re: changing the election date. There seems to be a legal problem, even if there was enthusiasm for doing it: it requires a change in law, but given parliament is disbanded for the GE, there are no elected MPs to attempt to table or approve such a change.

So the election has to go ahead as planned? I figured as much.

At this rate that's when the next attack will be.

And I'll go to the polling booth all the same, then head back out to work all the same.

There is no quick solution to these acts.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

nfe wrote:
Re: changing the election date. There seems to be a legal problem, even if there was enthusiasm for doing it: it requires a change in law, but given parliament is disbanded for the GE, there are no elected MPs to attempt to table or approve such a change.

So the election has to go ahead as planned? I figured as much.

At this rate that's when the next attack will be.

I'm sure some goons will want to target it, yes. But if Iraqis and Syrians can go to the polls in the middle of their hell, we can hold our heads up and do the same.


EDIT: Holy smokes. The BBC trying to get Corbyn to say whether this will have a positive or negative impact on his campaign, which he obviously refused to comment on. No end of decorum from the media, there.

nfe wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

nfe wrote:
Re: changing the election date. There seems to be a legal problem, even if there was enthusiasm for doing it: it requires a change in law, but given parliament is disbanded for the GE, there are no elected MPs to attempt to table or approve such a change.

So the election has to go ahead as planned? I figured as much.

At this rate that's when the next attack will be.

I'm sure some goons will want to target it, yes. But if Iraqis and Syrians can go to the polls in the middle of their hell, we can hold our heads up and do the same.


EDIT: Holy smokes. The BBC trying to get Corbyn to say whether this will have a positive or negative impact on his campaign, which he obviously refused to comment on. No end of decorum from the media, there.

Security will be tight as hell.
They will be going heavy on the visual police, and armed.

BBC... That's a low blow I admit.

Good. Don't let them stop you. They were starting to break my spirit but I won't let them.

I hope they don't pull the plug on Thursday.

Yeah, I live in the middle of nowhere, so it's easy for me to go on about carrying on, but we really have to.

Yeah. Right now going out to vote is a act of defiance.

That's rather bad I admit but every vote is a vote against them.

Same rural counties.
Few big cities. No real targets though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I hope they don't pull the plug on Thursday.

May just said no change to election bar suspended campaigns today. She also used that announcement to suggest she's right about controlling the internet, which is pretty disgraceful, and really took me quite by surprise.

 jhe90 wrote:


True. But if the watch lists keep failing. What else do we have left?
We keep being told the same thing. The system needs to change or more people lose loved ones, family, more vigils and candles.

Yes, they need dedicated, serious resources to enforce the watch system, and it needs to air tight.
If you are caught in planning of or exacuting of terror though the punishment needs to be as air tight and make it clear to any prospective maybe thinking of that path that it just not is worth it.

Ooc also may I say welcome to dakka, I'm sorry your first few posts had to be on such a sad topic.

Rounding up people just because they are on watch lists and putting such people in internment camps is a bad idea. It goes against everything a liberal society is about. Yes we may fear these attacks but an appropriate response is needed, not just a mass round up.

Firstly if we assume the watch list is ten's of thousands strong then there is simply a logistics perspective. That's the same number of people within an order of magnitude that is in our prisons (approx 90k). Hence we'd need equivalent facilties and staff (willing to do this) and funding to achieve it. Our prisons are hardly coping as it is.

Secondly we can probably assume that a tiny proportion of these people are actual potential terrorists. However it seems that currently they work in relatively isolated groups of (angry) people. How well are things going to go when you put such people together. Suppose you had put the manchester bomber (with knowledge of bomb making) with a larger group of people that do not know how? Additionally you are putting people with idealised (and blinded) philosphies with a larger group of people that might be sympathetic to the reasons but not the methods. They have been grabbed and put in an internment camp without any real reason other than suspicions. That will make such people become more angry and more susceptible to terrorist notions and put in the same place where they will be exposed to them.

Thirdly how long do you lock people away for without evidence or trial? Once on a watch list does that mean you are forever damned, regardless of what was said (links to a point below). How do you manage then an increasing population of people in internment camps?

Fourthly who decides whether you go on a watch list? We don't know how they decide this and who makes this decision. What if it is anyone that has regular contact with the person. Maybe you end up on a wtach list simply because you went to the gym on friday morning every week and that was the same time as someone that really was a potential terrorist. You might not have any conversation (other than "morning") but it might still put you on that list.

Fifth. Who makes a judgement as to whether someone goes on the watch list? Who has this oversight? If there is no due process. It can be exploited both by individuals and the government. MI5 agent goes home to find wife is sleeping with random stranger. MI5 agent decides to get even by putting guy on the watch list, who is promptly picked up and escorted to a detention centre. Alternatively it can be used by governments to silence dissent in the public at large. Say the wrong thing and off you go; oppose the intervention in syria, sorry thats sympathetic to terrorists and on the watch list you go. Fear of saying anything controversial limits freedom of speech and effectively hands a government complete control to do what they want without challenge.

Sixth. The actual number of people killed in terrorists attacks is exceedingly low relatively. Yes they are horrific, however about 1800 people per annum and 23,000 are seriously injured on our roads each year; however we don't bat an eyelid, what about heart diseases and cancer? We would save many more lives by concentrating on these issues. That does not mean we shoud ignore terrorism but over reactions can make things by far much worse.

We have to remember the people controlling the terrorists want the west to pull away from the world and become more insular. Hostility to people based on race, ethnic background, religon etc just force more people to be angry and into the arms of the terrorists. In addition if we ignore the rest of the world then they more opportunity to expand their grip on the world by attacking weak nations or those in the infancy of democracy whilst we stand by and just watch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
Yeah. Right now going out to vote is a act of defiance.

That's rather bad I admit but every vote is a vote against them.

Same rural counties.
Few big cities. No real targets though.

I think the only reason they woud cancel the election was if there was an attack at a polling station which meant that any outcome would always be open to questions as whether it was representative given that some people might stay away out of fear.

It's one thing that makes me think these are relatively isolated events without any real co-ordination. An attack on Thursday morning at a polling station, then drive to another and repeat until the police stopped you would almost certainly have far more impacts on the country as a whole. The election would have to be cancelled and repealed to be run again. That would mean Brexit negotiations would not start or have to be undertaken during another election (although I expect the EU would be reasonable here and just let us defer everything for three months). The government simply couldn't put armed forces at every polling station as that would be extremely intimidating for people (and there would be arguments for years as to whether this would influence peoples votes).

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I hope they don't pull the plug on Thursday.

May just said no change to election bar suspended campaigns today. She also used that announcement to suggest she's right about controlling the internet, which is pretty disgraceful, and really took me quite by surprise.

That's always the danger when these terrible incidents happen. The government uses it as an excuse for a power grab on our civil liberties.

Even when we were fighting for survival in WW2, civil liberties back then were much better than they are now...

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I hope they don't pull the plug on Thursday.

May just said no change to election bar suspended campaigns today. She also used that announcement to suggest she's right about controlling the internet, which is pretty disgraceful, and really took me quite by surprise.

It also shows she doesn't have a clue. The only thing you do by controlling things is drive things further underground. Controlling the internet is not about stopping terrorism it's about controlling your population and being the "thought police". It gives them the powers to decide what we see and general liberties are removed. She also stated that "Terrorism breeds terrorism" and I don't think there is any evidence to state such things. I could easily point to our rather "bomb from planes" approach to Syria and Libya has probably had a much larger impact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:



EDIT: Holy smokes. The BBC trying to get Corbyn to say whether this will have a positive or negative impact on his campaign, which he obviously refused to comment on. No end of decorum from the media, there.

I guess they didn't ask the same of May then?