London Bridge

Now there is something about the existence of which we might reasonably be sceptical. But yes, apparently you can still get them.

 

Errrr...

Is that not effectively what I said?
And whatever humans may or may not know, surely we accept 'best practice' of the age we are in, rather than dismissing everything because it may be superceded in future?

 

Interesting that this thread has morphed into a philosophical debate with GoBE giving a very good account of himself as the WFC Forums' Richard Dawkins. Anyway, that's for another day ...

What I'm interested in is pragmatics. What did May mean, pragmatically, by "enough is enough", we can't go on like this and things have gotta change?

Some have suggested she means more electronic surveillance powers. I'd suggest that's not enough at all. There's not much point in spotting more bad apples if you can't stop them committing their atrocities.

I suggest it's time for a round-up, deportations and internment and shut down the Didsbury Mosque etc. Let's start with the '3000'. Round 'em all up, deport those who aren't citizens of this nation and intere the rest. Shift the burden of proof to guilty until proven innocent and if you can't prove your innocence then you're banged up indefinitely. Anyone 'returning from Syria' gets banged-up too.

We'll probably need some new 'banging up' facilities so work should start apace on some new pre-fab institutions or make use of old accommodation facilities on platforms out in the North Sea. Rather more isolated than Dartmoor I believe. Best place for 'em then.

It is totally unacceptable that our young people can't enjoy a concert or a drink/meal on a Saturday night in safety because some medievalist nutter's on the prowl or that tourists won't feel safe in visiting all that this nation has to offer. Enough tolerance is now truly enough.

If they don't like it then I couldn't give a flying .... They've had every chance. Neither could I give a flying .... whether they've been radicalised online, at home, down the mosque or about whatever medievalist claptrap angst and grievances they might have in their baggage. I just want them put out of action, have absolutely no chance of committing any atrocity whatsoever and neutered.

I suggest this work starts on Friday.

 

I didn't want to carry on in this thread but saw an excellent point made on Twitter and wanted to post in here so some can get an idea of how I and I am sure many others feel about the media's role in extremisim.

Here we have attacker Khuram Butt who was reportedly a support of the idiot Anjem Choudary.

The media gave Anjem Choudary a platform to spew his hate. Not us Muslims, he was thrown out of mosques, not allowed to speak there.

Yet the media lapped him up, news panels, discussion shows and newspapers. I vividly remember sitting there with my Mum and saying "why is this bloody idiot on TV again" and I know for a fact many others felt the same, he didn't represent us at all. Young, impressionable Muslim men are drawn in by him, who at one point seemed to be EVERYWHERE. The media loved him spewing hate and he loved doing it.



The media even labelled him a "Leader of Islam" !!!

None of the 99.9% of peaceful Muslims was promoting him or claiming him. The media and govt kept shoving him in front of people as a representation of Islam. Big Questions with Nicky Campbell, Newsnight with Paxman and This Week with Andrew Neil. The media created him, promoted him and in turn radicalised Khuram Butt and I'm sure a few others.

Of course, the media didn't tell him to go out and kill innocent human beings, he did that on his own sick, twisted accord. BUT there is a chance if he wasn't given such limelight then he may not have gained supporters. Who knows, I'm not even sure what the answer is or what my conclusion is but this breakdown resonated with me so I wanted to share it.



This is how real Muslims dealt with the ******* idiot but the media continued to invite him on.

Read in full here if you like - https://twitter.com/mrjammyjamjar3/status/871829837262061568

 

Not even going to quote your racist claptrap kelso. I've always said Brexiters are racists or idiots. Congratulations on being both.

 

We tried internment without trial with the Catholics over in Northern Ireland.

Apart from being illegal and immoral, it made matters decidedly worse - not better. It created martyrs and thousands of converts to the cause. In fact we tried every single form of cracking down and harsh repression and reciprocal violence. It all proved counter-productive and things got worse.

Unfortunately at times like these, with their limited intellectual capacity, the only solution Tories are able to conceive is stepping up the killing and violence and battering the opposition into submission. Even though it never has worked and never will work, they know no other way. If re-elected, they'll repeat precisely these same mistakes at the cost of who knows how many innocent lives.

Her vacuous remarks about "enough is enough" are typical meaningless guff. What precisely is "enough" terrorism? Is a little bit OK, but not too much? Then she announces her war against tolerance. There's been too much of it she says and it's tolerance that's caused these terrorist attacks. Absolute nonsense of course. Who has been doing the tolerating? Muslim communities who reported these attackers to the authorities multiple times and were seemingly ignored? The Tory government who've been in charge for the past decade? The police and military? The British public? Who?

Nobody has tolerated terrorist attacks - nobody at all. What she actually means is she'd like to move towards an intolerant police state. She'd like a bit of repression and cracking down. Tories have always been fans of that policy anyway, regardless of the circumstances.

I will repeat once more; the only way to solve these problems is through negotiation. Indeed, eventually, they will no doubt be solved that way - through negotiation and agreement. Through a bit of give and take. The same way as Northern Ireland was. The same way as every other similar bloody dispute has been. Could anyone honestly see ISIS saying "oh well, you've locked up and deported hundreds of innocent Muslims in Britain, so we'd better give up our campaign immediately." It's just not realistic.

I'm sure people will say that you can't negotiate with terrorists because "they don't want to negotiate" or because it's morally repugnant to negotiate with them.

These of course were precisely and exactly the same pathetic arguments which were proved so wrong in bringing peace to Northern Ireland.

 

I honestly think that Clive has gone barking mad.

Negotiate? With people that don't give any value to non-believer's lives, who have stated that they will not stop until the whole of Europe is following their brand of Islam?

What are they/we going to negotiate with?

I always suspected he was somewhat detached from reality, now I know he is detached from his brain as well.

 

But Clive is right insofar as just locking people up without evidence won't work. In Denmark they have special education teams whose job is to identify and re educate those most vulnerable, with fewer people willing to carry out the hate preachers' evil teachings there will be fewer incidents, furthermore let's not faff around when it comes to such hate preachers, Abu Hamza for example was allowed to walk free and continue to recruit for years while sticking up two fingers at the authorities.

 

I made it clear it was the negotiating bit, not the locking up bit as that is debatable.
But sitting round having a chat with Jihadis bent on killing anyone that "doesn't believe" is bonkers.

 

...well, from someone that doesn't even think that Squibba's post at 07.42 pm Sunday was even "controversial" ?
You all seem to have lost the sense of reasoning. Barking mad!

 

For clarity I'm a Tory and dread Corbyn getting anywhere near no.10. However in this instance he and our Clive are of course 100% right. In no way are they suggesting sitting around a table with a nice cup of tea to chat about the problem.
A negotiating policy shouldn't be beyond our governments wit? Locking people up just won't work, never did, never will.
Perhaps start at the grass roots, make contact with the leaders of Isis and the hate preachers. Offer a carrot not a stick?
As things stand neither side wins. Indeed something needs to change

 

First of all I would like to point out I am not "Islamaphobic" or "Racist" in any way, but I agree with most of what Kelso says in his post about taking what is possibly draconian action and interning all of those who are even suspected of having been radicalised or who have radical Islamic Fundimentalist sympathies. Furthermore such people should be deemed guilty unless they can prove their innocence, which is something I have already advocated in another post.

What I do not agree with is Kelso's suggestion that Didsbury or any other Mosque should be shut down! We all know, or at least we should do, that the vast majority of Muslims are decent law abiding citizens and deplore, probably even more than we do, what these maniacs are doing in the name of their religion.

The maniacs who are committing these atrocities ARE NOT true Muslims and I am sorry that many people are tarring the genuine Muslim community with the same brush as these maniacs, it is wrong and should not be happening!

However, getting back to the subject of internment, I really hope that when Mrs May said "enough is enough" that she had this type of measure in mind to tackle this terrible cancer that is inflicting, not only our country and way of life, but many other countries throughout the world.

These BARSTARDS must be stopped, and if it takes dracoian measures to do that, then so be it! After all rather some innocent people have their cival liberties TEMPORARILLY infringed by possibly being incorrectly interned, rather than others having their cival liberties PERMANENTLY infringed by leaving just one of these suspected maniacs out on the streets to MURDER them.

 

Wow, just wow.

 

Nobody is implying that but, as I have said before, any establishment that continuously allows hate preachers to spout their garbage from within should be closed down with immediate effect

 

Agree with most of that VOR, I also agree we have got to start getting much tougher on this and I'm all for doing so, but as Hornetgags has pointed out don't think people should have to prove innocence and be 'deemed guilty' , that's a dangerous road and surely most basic of human rights.

 

Clive is probably right about Northern Ireland with regard to internment, and that talking is what eventually brought about the current peace over there.

However, there is a big difference between the IRA and the current ISIS etc. maniacs and that is that the IRA had a specific cause that could be talked about, but can you tell me Clive WHAT exactly would you talk about with ISIS?

I take your point Otter about trying to re-educate those who have been radicalised, and I have suggested that this should be the case in an earlier post of mine, however I think this should be done whilst they are in the safe envioment of internment, rather than leaving them out on the streets to possibly enact the hate preachers teachings before they can be re-educated.

 

Tell that to the families of those who have been murdered, what about their basic human rights!

 

I'm not an expert on internet privacy, but I imagine May's Government haven't suddenly learnt how to crack encrypted applications and anonymous browsing. It seems to me that unless you get the Facebook's and Youtube's of the world on side (Rather than trying to publicly criticise them) , then you're going to struggle to make any type of change, as other have said, you're only restricting the online privacy of the every day citizen and those that hide online will continue to do so.

It's probably virtually impossible, but I do wonder whether it would be possible for ISP's to ban the visibility of Youtube, Twitter and other Social Media accounts that originate from Iraq, Syria etc in the UK. It might not do anything but it could help stop those considering extremism from making the first baby steps of viewing IS propaganda that's more readily available via open Social Media.

I imagine rounding up Muslims and arresting them under the line of 'Guilty until proven innocent' will cause a further divide and will further radicalise future generations - something we ideally want to nip in the bud now.

 

An interesting read for all those that believe this is a situation that shows any similarity to the likes of Ireland and we can somehow negotiate a truce..

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/what-to-do-about-isis-negotiations/423432/

 

One would hope that those families would be against a massive change in the fundamentals of our justice system and society, being exactly what the murderers of their loved ones would want.

 

The only similarity between racism and pragmatism is that they both end in ism. You really do need to get your 'isms' sorted out mate.

Anyway, back home we face a clear and present danger on our streets. And everyone knows where it comes from. When May made her speech she'd just come out of a COBRA meeting. I suggest that all sorts of detail surrounding what pragmatic measures might be put in place to address "enough is enough" were discussed at that meeting but that May, rightly, didn't articulate that detail on the steps of No.10 the morning after the event and four days before a general election. So watch this space then ...

Anyway again, failure to implement something 'draconian' in the short term will inevitably lead to 'the people doing it for themselves'. There are already 'those of WFC' (not you Iamof ...) clamouring for that elsewhere. That is a scenario to be avoided at all costs.

And a final anyway. The 'clear and present danger' is on the streets of the UK. So no-one back here really gives a .... about the views of someone hiding out in Angeles City down Manila way. I understand the Philippines have their own terrorist issues. But I'm not going to pontificate as to their solution. Anyway.

 

I can't work out if you are being serious.
Govt: "Hello Mr Isis, nice to be face to face at last. What is it that you want, perhaps we can find a middle ground"
Daesh: "We demand a worldwide caliphate and the conversion or death of all non-believers; the death of homosexuals and adulterers, the banning of alcohol and music..."
Govt: "Would it be okay if you stopped at Northampton? Would shandy be acceptable? Surely Ed Sheeran would be tolerable?"

 

So what you're saying is, everyone who steps off the plane from a middle eastern country is to be arrested and charged, then they'll have their day in court to prove their innocence?

If I go to Egypt on holiday, should I be arrested when I return then prove I haven't been radicalised?

Well you did say draconian.

 

How could we ever look in the eye again other countries who legal systems we condemn around the world , I think presumption of innocence is something in which we can genuinely be proud, something these evil murdering bastards and all they stand for couldn't possibly start to understand , removal of it is one hell of a big step to take, future implications would be enormous, we'd be turning the clock back years, if not centuries, on our justice system.

 

The only real reason I've ever gone along with for 'locking people up' is that they can't 'do crime' whilst locked up. That is the reasoning here. If some get 'converted to the cause' because of this new policy then I'm afraid they'll need to be 'locked up' too ...

 

All that stuff can go on in tandem. There is now also the need for something 'immediate' ...

 

Which is fine if 'the list' is completely definitive. But it won't be. So the immediate action you want sees thousands rounded up yet it would only need, say, 10 unrelated individuals (not on the list) to perpetrate unsophisticated terrorists attacks over 10 days around the country in order to make a mockery of the whole internment idea. The country would be reeling and the camps would look like the chocolate fireguard they would be.

 

I particularly picked out Didsbury because it has long been recognised as a hot-bed of Wahabbist clap-trap. Even by a former, moslem, Labour M.P. I'd have to google him again if you want chapter and verse.

There will be a few other similar institutions that need 'shutting down' too. Pragmatically and as a warning. I am not advocating the wholesale closure of mosques. Yet.

 

Then we'd need to up the draconianism ...

 

Why is 'that what they'd want'? All that they want as far as I can see is a planet-wide Islamic caliphate. Is all getting locked up part of that agenda too? Seems weird to me and more likely that all this 'what they want' business is simply an urban myth.

Maybe they do want a 'holy war'. OK. Bring it on. Medieval mumbo-jumboism v the scientific method, real empirically derived truth and reasoning. There can only be one winner there. A point I believe you agree with.

Luckily, in the modern western world, we are well advanced in the process of leaving our own medieval clap-trap behind. But the Islamic world hasn't even started to play catch-up yet. Well I'm not prepared to sit about twiddling my thumbs for 500 years while they do.

 

You don't seem to realise you're already proposing Premier League level draconianism. Top half of the table draconianism no less. If you want to make a break for the Champions League places you'd need to go full on banana republic.

 

No. Don't be silly. It will be fairly obvious who the suspects who need 'rounding up' and escorting to a secure facility would be.

You wouldn't be included.

 

I believe our current and pragmatic aspirations are for a top-half-of-the-table finish. I fully realise exactly what I'm proposing. For the duration of this nonsense ...

 

I think "Death Squads" are the way forward. To introduce the concept of "Instant Justice" to the public and to train the troops can I suggest we start on those not employing lane discipline at Stirling Corner. Once the project's teething problems had been highlighted and rectifies it could then be fully extended to anyone else I don't like. It could also be cost neutral by sending a bill for bullets to the guilty party's family or, for example plucked out of the air, mosque.