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.

 Whirlwind wrote:


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.

I agree.

We are not nor have been perfect in the recent past but we shouldn't be going to extreme measures in order to fight would factually can be seen as a long death throw for an ideology that is loosing. (In reality loosing nothing).

I do think that the UK needs to decide what it wants to be seen as. A place of tolerance and respect is a start.

 Whirlwind wrote:

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?

She didn't take any questions. Though quite obviously they wouldn't have anyway. After all, May only takes vetted questions from the media these days.

nfe wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

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?

She didn't take any questions. Though quite obviously they wouldn't have anyway. After all, May only takes vetted questions from the media these days.

Today is only a more a statement day for her.
She might update on attacks, express her condolences and not much political points scoring.
That's for tomorrow.

 jhe90 wrote:

She might update on attacks, express her condolences and not much political points scoring.
That's for tomorrow.

Well, except for the bit she already did. I don't think we'll hear from her again today. I don't know who will be the conduit, actually, given the natural choice is Rudd but she's being kept low. Probably just the cops.

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

She might update on attacks, express her condolences and not much political points scoring.
That's for tomorrow.

Well, except for the bit she already did. I don't think we'll hear from her again today. I don't know who will be the conduit, actually, given the natural choice is Rudd but she's being kept low. Probably just the cops.

Yeah, Cops likely. police are apolitical, they just state information. They make more sense today to be stating it. That or a representative from security services.
Ruddshe needs time.

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

She might update on attacks, express her condolences and not much political points scoring.
That's for tomorrow.

Well, except for the bit she already did. I don't think we'll hear from her again today. I don't know who will be the conduit, actually, given the natural choice is Rudd but she's being kept low. Probably just the cops.

Yeah, Cops likely. police are apolitical, they just state information. They make more sense today to be stating it. That or a representative from security services.
Ruddshe needs time.

Spoke to soon. IDS straight onto the BBC to also try and pin blame on internet providers. This is really shameful behaviour. After a fortnight of 'there's nobody to blame but the perpetrator', too.

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

She might update on attacks, express her condolences and not much political points scoring.
That's for tomorrow.

Well, except for the bit she already did. I don't think we'll hear from her again today. I don't know who will be the conduit, actually, given the natural choice is Rudd but she's being kept low. Probably just the cops.

Yeah, Cops likely. police are apolitical, they just state information. They make more sense today to be stating it. That or a representative from security services.
Ruddshe needs time.

Spoke to soon. IDS straight onto the BBC to also try and pin blame on internet providers. This is really shameful behaviour. After a fortnight of 'there's nobody to blame but the perpetrator', too.

I'm out so not seen tv news since morning. May main source of updates is dakka right now as low data use.

So they're trying to use this incident to push their agenda of more direct control over our lives.

I know. The irony isn't lost on me.

 jhe90 wrote:


I'm out so not seen tv news since morning. May main source of updates is dakka right now as low data use.

I meant that I spoke to soon, not you, just to be clear!

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


I'm out so not seen tv news since morning. May main source of updates is dakka right now as low data use.

I meant that I spoke to soon, not you, just to be clear!

No worries. Yeah. Today was not day to come out swinging.
Update the public. Simple statement of facts.

Have not gone to the whole deploy the army level response yet. However I have little doubts that some of these police assult teams might be a tad police in name only and somewhat more feared acronym's soon.

They definitely are not going for anything but we will end this now, we will end it hard.
Little complaints if they did.

I'm glad the election is on, but cancelling the Andrew Marr show and other debates, sends out the wrong signal and tells the terrorists that if they keep doing these attacks, they can disrupt this country.

nfe wrote:


Spoke to soon. IDS straight onto the BBC to also try and pin blame on internet providers. This is really shameful behaviour. After a fortnight of 'there's nobody to blame but the perpetrator', too.

I'm afraid that it is likely that the Tories will use this as an excuse to hit the general populaces' freedoms and rather than improve directed information gathering and prevention.

It also doesn't help that IDS also stated

Everybody in Britain must be equal before the law - we cannot make allowances any longer for some communities

Because this is just implying that some people get different treatment under the law than others which is simply not the case. We all have to abide by the same laws. In some ways it can be argued that the very wealthy that the Tories support are the ones that don't abide by all the laws as they have the wealth to fund private accountants, have non-dom status and hire swarms of legal teams to protect them and so on to allow them to find every loop hole going - something that is simply not available to the average person.

However by stating "some communities" (I think we can infer which one he means) it makes some people believe that they really do have different rules (they don't) and hence less tolerant and it will make these communities more threatened because of the rhetoric (which again can push more people to extreme views) as it makes them feel like they are under attack.

That we don't have enough police to enforce all our rules is something the Tories have been actively trying to encourage over the last seven years.

We also have May coming out with the following statement (from the BBC):-

* showing “British values..are superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate”.

* cracking down on online extremism to deny the “safe space” for potential violence, while taking military action in Iraq and Syria

* “stamping out” extremism “across the public sector and society” and an end to “segregated communities”

* a review of counter-terrorism strategy with longer jail sentences even for ‘apparently less serious offences’

We again have British values which doesn't really mean anything. From the perspective of those being bombed in Syria/Libya/Iraq etc it is uncertain whether what we might think might be the same as that in those countries (whether extremist or not).

As for cracking down on online extremism, this either shows a lack of understanding of in the internet or is just words. Unless you start blocking sites like Snapchat or any other private conversation tool then this is just wishful thinking. You can't literally monitor everything. All you potentially do is force people to use other methods (lets say ham radios).

I'm not sure what May means about extremism in the public sector. As far as I am aware there are not roving bands of cultists in the NHS having secret meetings, lunchtime conversations at the town hall considering how to blow something up. This seems an unnecessary attack on the public sector without any evidence to back it up.

And who knows what *apparent* less serious offences are, but again implies potential reductions in freedom of speech.

Everyone should be equal under the law but as was seen in Rotherham there has been reluctance to target certain communities with investigation due to a fear of being labelled 'racist', among other reasons.

It's a bit rich of Theresa May to say 'enough is enough' as though it's someone else responsible for cutting police numbers and undermining security.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Everyone should be equal under the law but as was seen in Rotherham there has been reluctance to target certain communities with investigation due to a fear of being labelled 'racist', among other reasons.

Aye... I mean law should be applied regardless of skin colour.
I don,t care what race you are, if its a crime that crime should be punished equally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Everyone should be equal under the law but as was seen in Rotherham there has been reluctance to target certain communities with investigation due to a fear of being labelled 'racist', among other reasons.

It's a bit rich of Theresa May to say 'enough is enough' as though it's someone else responsible for cutting police numbers and undermining security.

Something that hasn't helped relations with the EU is the way that rights legislation was abused to prevent us getting rid of people like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada to face trials abroad. People sought abroad for terrorist activity and preaching hate in the UK, were sheltered by EU law for years costing us millions in appeals to get them to face justice around the world. There has to be a way to protect our rights without villains making a mockery of us and costing us vast amounts of money.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Something that hasn't helped relations with the EU is the way that rights legislation was abused to prevent us getting rid of people like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada to face trials abroad. People sought abroad for terrorist activity and preaching hate in the UK, were sheltered by EU law for years costing us millions in appeals to get them to face justice around the world. There has to be a way to protect our rights without villains making a mockery of us and costing us vast amounts of money.

Yeah... That was stupid.
It dragged on for years. And while it dragged on we had to pay alot of costs, his sons got caught for stuff too I believe.
Years of speaks, legal aid, appeal after appeal.

There's human rights protection and then you have outright exploration.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Something that hasn't helped relations with the EU is the way that rights legislation was abused to prevent us getting rid of people like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada to face trials abroad.

This is true, but largely because most people aren't aware that the EU and ECHR are not connected institutions and it has served the media well to sustain the misunderstanding that they are.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Everyone should be equal under the law but as was seen in Rotherham there has been reluctance to target certain communities with investigation due to a fear of being labelled 'racist', among other reasons.

It's a bit rich of Theresa May to say 'enough is enough' as though it's someone else responsible for cutting police numbers and undermining security.

There were multiple facets to this it wasn't just a race issue and I think this has been somewhat overblown because it is an easier blame culture. More important factors were lack of recognition by council management, lack of belief of the witnesses, lack of comparing notes (and joining the dots), and likely a general lack of wanting to believe such a thing can happen. There are almost certainly white/UK born dominated paedophile rings out there. The same thing happened with Jimmy Saville. People knew it was going on but turned a blind eye simply because they didn't want to believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Something that hasn't helped relations with the EU is the way that rights legislation was abused to prevent us getting rid of people like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada to face trials abroad. People sought abroad for terrorist activity and preaching hate in the UK, were sheltered by EU law for years costing us millions in appeals to get them to face justice around the world. There has to be a way to protect our rights without villains making a mockery of us and costing us vast amounts of money.

It wasn't quite like this. The ECHR (noting pretty much the UK drafted this) wanted to ensure that they were going to have a fair trial and weren't simply going to be executed 'accidently' before it went to trial. They wanted guarantees. This applies equally to all of us. If it had been extradition to the US/Germany/Australia etc the ECHR would not have had an issue and he would have been extradited. However IIRC one of the countries was Jordan and there were serious concerns that a fair trial would not be undertaken. He was eventually extradited after we had that assurance.

To note this applies to us all equally. Suppose you had been on holiday in the Philippines and on your flight back got accused of rape and murder and asked to extradited. Yet in the meantime the President stated that you were guilty and that you'd get the death penalty because he'd seen the evidence. Would you want to go back when you were so unlikely to get a fair trial and likely be executed? What happens if the UK in effort to secure a new weapons deal agreed that you should be? It's at this point you could go to the ECHR and appeal. You would be treated in the same way and they would require the UK government to get assurances over your treatment when there. Is that not something you would prefer? Yes it is unlikely but it is there as a safety net and does provide assurance that you don't become a pawn of any individual government.

Yes it does mean sometimes things take longer than people would like but is that not preferable to getting it wrong?

However, the system worked. Abu Hamza eventually exhausted his avenues of appeal and was deported.

I don't think we want a fast-track system that lets the "authorities" quietly get rid of people they don't like.

Remember that the Abu Hamza trials happened against the background of the emerging US/UK involvement in "extraordinary rendition." This was a fancy phrase for sending people through a trap door to places where they could be tortured in defiance of US/UK law.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
However, the system worked. Abu Hamza eventually exhausted his avenues of appeal and was deported.

I don't think we want a fast-track system that lets the "authorities" quietly get rid of people they don't like.

Remember that the Abu Hamza trials happened against the background of the emerging US/UK involvement in "extraordinary rendition." This was a fancy phrase for sending people through a trap door to places where they could be tortured in defiance of US/UK law.

Yeah, good post. Now and again, I post links to Craig Murray's blogspot. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and he was fired by Blair for blowing the whistle on Britain and the USA sending susepcts there to be tortured, the Uzbeks and their president not giving two hoots for UN laws against that sort of thing.

It was a very shameful episode in Britain's history and one of the reasons, like you say, why we have to guard against people being fast tracked out of the country.

 Whirlwind wrote:


Yes it does mean sometimes things take longer than people would like but is that not preferable to getting it wrong?

The question is, why wasn't Abu Hamza prosecuted for terrorism in the UK? (instead of relatively minor hate speech offences).

It would have saved years and thousands of pounds.

jouso wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:


Yes it does mean sometimes things take longer than people would like but is that not preferable to getting it wrong?

The question is, why wasn't Abu Hamza prosecuted for terrorism in the UK? (instead of relatively minor hate speech offences).

It would have saved years and thousands of pounds.

Because he never committed a crime in the UK. He may have spouted obnoxious nonsense but that in itself (at the time) wasn't illegal. If people are willing to listen, not question and effectively only listen to what they already believe to be true (echo chamber if you will) then the sort of rhetoric might get people even more angry with the system but in itself doesn't actively encourage terrorism. Freedom of speech does mean that people can be more open with what they can say as long as it doesn't specifically encourage terrorism/death threats or racial hatred. However, as with most things there are shades of grey and people can push the boundaries if they are careful.

We also have fascist groups in the UK as well and they are tolerated but not liked and the same applies for these people as well and do the same things to drive certain people to get more angry (in this case towards migrants/different racial types etc).

All the tax money spent on him makes me feel ill.

 Whirlwind wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:


Yes it does mean sometimes things take longer than people would like but is that not preferable to getting it wrong?

The question is, why wasn't Abu Hamza prosecuted for terrorism in the UK? (instead of relatively minor hate speech offences).

It would have saved years and thousands of pounds.

Because he never committed a crime in the UK. He may have spouted obnoxious nonsense but that in itself (at the time) wasn't illegal.

He never committed a crime in the US either, actually I don't think he ever set foot there before he was eventually shipped there. And it's telling that the most severe of the cases he was tried for ended up with the death of three Britons and one Australian tourist in Yemen, not a single American.

Two of the teenage victims of the Manchester attack who were wounded (but thankfully not killed) come from my town. I know the school they attend. It's just occurred to me that Manchester is the closest I've ever gotten to terrorism.

Now, I'm not in any way saying I'm personally affected or wanting sympathy for myself, but I probably know some people who know the girls personally. There aren't a lot of degrees of separation here.

And... Guess what's coming out.
The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...

If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.

Seems the security net had holes in it.

 jhe90 wrote:
And... Guess what's coming out.
The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...

If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.

Seems the security net had holes in it.

Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.

This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
And... Guess what's coming out.
The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...

If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.

Seems the security net had holes in it.

Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.

This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.

Unfortunately, it seems that for much of the country, the only part of defence that matters is the willingness to incinerate millions of people preemptively,

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
And... Guess what's coming out.
The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...

If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.

Seems the security net had holes in it.

Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.

This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.

Unfortunately, it seems that for much of the country, the only part of defence that matters is the willingness to incinerate millions of people preemptively,

Agreed. Trident has turned out to be as useful as a chocolate teapot.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
And... Guess what's coming out.
The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...

If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.

Seems the security net had holes in it.

Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.

This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.

Unfortunately, it seems that for much of the country, the only part of defence that matters is the willingness to incinerate millions of people preemptively,

Agreed. Trident has turned out to be as useful as a chocolate teapot.

True... I mena getting our carriers quicker to full combat duty. 6 more type 45 like planned.
More frigates. They cannot hurt our islands defences.

Our armed forced and Police forces do need a boost.
The world only seems to get more dangerous, not less so investing in those defences seems prudent.

They said we may have 400 from Islamic state in Syria, Iraq. UK citizens and maybe some 400 more in the region on BBC
None of those people should ever set a single foot back on UK soil.

Far as I care. They gave up that right when they enlisted with them. They knew who they where joining and what they did yet still went to fight for them.