›

CLOSED

13567…164

Comments

  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,615
    I think one of the issue is that there are far more suspects than we think. The recent attacker had "slipped off the rader" so was he a suspect? And what of those who give help and support (either active or passive)
    And, as with N Ireland, this was a temp solution that treated the effect and not the cause. As it turned out, negotiation was the long term solution there. With extreme Islam terror, negotiation is a luxury we just dont have.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    patb wrote: »
    I think one of the issue is that there are far more suspects than we think. The recent attacker had "slipped off the rader" so was he a suspect? And what of those who give help and support (either active or passive)
    And, as with N Ireland, this was a temp solution that treated the effect and not the cause. As it turned out, negotiation was the long term solution there. With extreme Islam terror, negotiation is a luxury we just dont have.

    Yes the Irish Republican goal of a united Ireland is comparatively different to the goal of a caliphate (worldwide?). I'd rather there be a united Ireland than a worldwide caliphate!
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    edited March 2017 Posts: 1,053
    Terrorism is terrorism, however it manifests itself. Both factions in Northern Ireland carried out heinous attacks on innocent civilians. Some members here lived through it.

    'Slipped off the radar' is a media term. Once you are suspected of terrorism/supporting terrorism etc then your name remains on the database - there are no 'spent' profiles - the only way you come off it is when you die. The PoS while have come off the 'to be watched' list but remained as a known suspect/sympathiser. Yes there are many suspects, too many to be watched, that's why the vermin we are speaking about managed to do what he did, and that's why they need to be rounded up and imprisoned, if needs be, indefinitely and without trial.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    stag wrote: »
    Terrorism is terrorism, however it manifests itself. Both factions in Northern Ireland carried out heinous attacks on innocent civilians. Some members here lived through it.

    'Slipped off the radar' is a media term. Once you are suspected of terrorism/supporting terrorism etc then your name remains on the database - there are no 'spent' profiles - the only way you come off it is when you die. The PoS while have come off the 'to be watched' list but remained as a known suspect/sympathiser. Yes there are many suspects, too many to be watched, that's why the vermin we are speaking about managed to do what he did, and that's why they need to be rounded up and imprisoned, if needs be, indefinitely and without trial.

    With trial.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    No, without trial. Until such time as they are proved innocent or no longer a threat. Personally I put the rights of the civil population at large above those who have been positively identified as a threat to the security of the nation.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    Remember trials come after the event. Do we wait for more people to be slaughtered or do we act on intelligence reports? Remember I said that due process would be observed. It's not just a case of locking up anyone who goes to a Mosque but those, after due deliberation from a panel of judges, are deemed to pose a credible threat to national security.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited March 2017 Posts: 4,325
    stag wrote: »
    No, without trial. Until such time as they are proved innocent or no longer a threat. Personally I put the rights of the civil population at large above those who have been positively identified as a threat to the security of the nation.

    Held indefinitely? I agree you need to make an arrest in such a situation and hold the suspect for questioning - but there has to be a time limit too.

    Also there's little you can do if someone isn't on the radar and wakes up one morning and decides to run people down.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    edited March 2017 Posts: 1,053
    No, not in this situation. From my perspective, MI5 would present a case to the judges, if the judges thought there was sufficient evidence to act, then the suspect would be arrested and held until further notice.

    This would be automatically extended to all returning Syrian jihadists.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I don't think indefinite internment is practical. Basically that would be a Guantanamo for the UK, but on UK soil. I'm sure there are legal ramifications for such an approach.

    While I can appreciate that security measures must be beefed up in the interest of public safety, I believe there are far less intrusive measures that can (and must) be taken to change the culture. Some suggestions:

    1. ensure hate speech which incites violence is reported. Offer substantial financial rewards if need be, to encourage snitching on hate mongers in madrassas. Ensure that intelligence operatives are stationed in the largest and most popular ones 'as a legal requirement' in the interest of public security and safety. If nobody is doing anything wrong, they have nothing to be worried about.
    2. limit the number of 'places of worship' or ensure they are better regulated and subject to more stringent rules prior to being eligible for charity status. Most important of all is that they 'must' be strongly encouraged to teach ('preach'?) a UK first ideology before any religious affiliation as a pre-condition. This should apply to all religious schools, and not just Muslim ones.
    3. limit the number of units in community housing and social assistance housing in a specific neighbourhood that is eligible for people from a certain religious background, to ensure better integration/assimilation and avoid fuelling 'religious ghettos' subsidized by the government & taxpayer.
    4. do not ban religious symbols (such as burqa, niqab, chador etc.) but ensure they cannot be used in places of work etc. Only in private and at places of worship. Why not ban them entirely? Well, because that will play into the terrorist's hands and give them a tool to incite the believers. Ensure that the requirement also applies to kippahs and other overt religious symbols.
    5. levy fines on google, facebook etc. (and make them quite substantial) for any instances of violence inciting religious rhetoric (including bomb making etc.). While we all benefit from greater information these days, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to incite hatred and violence.
    6. ensure that any Muslim who visits Syria, Turkey, Iraq or Yemen has to fully explain why they went there. Make the requirement onerous to discourage visits to places that neighbour war torn regions run by ISIL/ISIS/Daesh. Saudi Arabia will unfortunately have to be exempted as it is the religious home of Islam.

    Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. I'm sure there are a lot more ideas that can work.
  • patbpatb
    edited March 2017 Posts: 4,615
    The internment option is interesting but the genius (if thats the right word) of this form of terrorism is that they are great at portraying themselves as the victims within their own community. Its common sense that there are other guys who are "on the edge" of joining these groups and projects that would appear to victimise or target communities would be turned around and used as proof (in the eyes of the terrorists) that Western Liberal culture is indeed "out to get" Muslims.
    We are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    Anyone can check out the results of the opinion poll commissioned by Channel 4 in April 2016 to see that there are issues far deeper than the small minority who commit the acts. There are deeper/wider levels of sympathy or tacit consent. Until these are dealt with, the terrorists will find it far easier to survive "in plain sight" and find convenient hiding places or neighbours that will trun a blind eye.
  • patbpatb
    edited March 2017 Posts: 4,615
    delete
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    If I'm not mistaken, there was no religious violence in Masood's past. There was evidence of his violent inclinations, but not of anything based on religion or political affiliation. So he probably would have slipped through the cracks anyway.

    The issue with interning someone like him is that then it would legally also have to apply to others who have committed violence in the past.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited March 2017 Posts: 4,325
    stag wrote: »
    No, not in this situation. From my perspective, MI5 would present a case to the judges, if the judges thought there was sufficient evidence to act, then the suspect would be arrested and held until further notice.

    This would be automatically extended to all returning Syrian jihadists.

    Better to keep surveillance, gather evidence to make a credible legal case, and also get others too. That is how MI5 has managed to stop the many terrorist threats that don't make the headlines.

    If we went down your route though we wouldn't need as many MI5 officers, could make cuts and get the deficit down. Not my choice ... but you could.
  • patbpatb
    edited March 2017 Posts: 4,615
    This problem is, if we dont change anything and continue with the policies we have, we are basically accepting that more people will die and there is nothing we can do. Surely, those in power and the wider society have a duty to consider and try all options available (within reason) to stop terror attacks and I'm not convinced that we have explored all options. Especially within a liberal environment where even discussing the Islamic element of the issue is seen is racist/Islamophobic.
    Whilst not wanting to over-simplify the issues, I think there are comparisons with violence amongst football fans. There are those who say that the issue has nothing to do with football. And it is clear that obviously, violent fans are in a small minority. But the violence exists within a wider culture of tacit consent and non-reporting and within a macho culture where violence (and drunkeness, agression etc) is more the norm than within wider society.

    I personnally find it very hard to accept the simple "binary" version of Islam that many liberals are portraying of a peaceful, inclusive religion with a tiny minority of terrorsts. A far more realistic model, for me, is a sliding scale of norms and values where the people at the very extreme "stand on the shoulders" of the broader culture and, in some way, feel that they are representing the interests of their people. For every 1 terrorist, there are hundreds of thousands who want homosexuality to be a criminal offence. A culture of intolerance IMHO.

  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited March 2017 Posts: 4,325
    patb wrote: »
    This problem is, if we dont change anything and continue with the policies we have, we are basically accepting that more people will die and there is nothing we can do. Surely, those in power and the wider society have a duty to consider and try all options available (within reason) to stop terror attacks and I'm not convinced that we have explored all options. Especially within a liberal environment where even discussing the Islamic element of the issue is seen is racist/Islamophobic.
    Whilst not wanting to over-simplify the issues, I think there are comparisons with violence amongst football fans. There are those who say that the issue has nothing to do with football. And it is clear that obviously, violent fans are in a small minority. But the violence exists within a wider culture of tacit consent and non-reporting and within a macho culture where violence (and drunkeness, agression etc) is more the norm than within wider society.

    I personnally find it very hard to accept the simple "binary" version of Islam that many liberals are portraying of a peaceful, inclusive religion with a tiny minority of terrorsts. A far more realistic model, for me, is a sliding scale of norms and values where the people at the very extreme "stand on the shoulders" of the broader culture and, in some way, feel that they are representing the interests of their people. For every 1 terrorist, there are hundreds of thousands who want homosexuality to be a criminal offence. A culture of intolerance IMHO.

    Locking up people who turn out to not be terrorists may well create terrorists. After Bloody Sunday the IRA got many new recruits.

    MI5 works within a strict framework of legislation and oversight to ensure their investigative powers are only used where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. Their work is subject to rigorous scrutiny (and necessarily so): by the Home Secretary, who personally signs warrants for their most intrusive activity; by Parliament, in the Intelligence and Security Committee; by two independent commissioners, both former senior judges; and by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

    The Investigatory Powers Act will change these oversight arrangements and aims to modernise the legal framework within which the intelligence agencies work.

    We need a security agency not a secret police.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2017 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't think indefinite internment is practical. Basically that would be a Guantanamo for the UK, but on UK soil. I'm sure there are legal ramifications for such an approach.

    Indeed. Whilst I have no truck whatsoever with the religious, and Islam in particular, to just lock up every Muslim is as impractical as it is extreme.
    bondjames wrote: »
    1. ensure hate speech which incites violence is reported. Offer substantial financial rewards if need be, to encourage snitching on hate mongers in madrassas. Ensure that intelligence operatives are stationed in the largest and most popular ones 'as a legal requirement' in the interest of public security and safety. If nobody is doing anything wrong, they have nothing to be worried about.

    MI5 needs to quietly bug all mosques and gathering places also. In addition mandatory life sentences for anyone convicted of hate preaching.
    bondjames wrote: »
    2. limit the number of 'places of worship' or ensure they are better regulated and subject to more stringent rules prior to being eligible for charity status. Most important of all is that they 'must' be strongly encouraged to teach ('preach'?) a UK first ideology before any religious affiliation as a pre-condition. This should apply to all religious schools, and not just Muslim ones.

    Good idea. If your faith school wants to be allowed to peddle it's fairy tales at formative minds then there must also be weekly 'UK citizenship' classes (overseen by government appointed teachers not the religious) at the school as well otherwise you get closed down.
    bondjames wrote: »
    3. limit the number of units in community housing and social assistance housing in a specific neighbourhood that is eligible for people from a certain religious background, to ensure better integration/assimilation and avoid fuelling 'religious ghettos' subsidized by the government & taxpayer.

    4. do not ban religious symbols (such as burqa, niqab, chador etc.) but ensure they cannot be used in places of work etc. Only in private and at places of worship. Why not ban them entirely? Well, because that will play into the terrorist's hands and give them a tool to incite the believers. Ensure that the requirement also applies to kippahs and other overt religious symbols.

    3 & 4 can be taken together as they are about increasing the division between church and state. We are a long way behind compared to somewhere like France in terms allowing religion to have no bearing on public life and government policy.
    In addition to your two ideas I would throw in that all clergy be ejected from the House of Lords as well.
    bondjames wrote: »
    5. levy fines on google, facebook etc. (and make them quite substantial) for any instances of violence inciting religious rhetoric (including bomb making etc.). While we all benefit from greater information these days, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to incite hatred and violence.

    I don't know if it's a myth but if you go on Amazon and buy Mein Kampf or The Anarchists Cook Book isn't it supposed to trigger a flag at the CIA? Can't we have the same for ISIS on google searches, FB and Twitter posts too? I guess the trouble is who is going to police such a vast amount of data?
    Also someone needs to start getting tough with Apple and Whatsapp; it's ludicrous that they cannot be forced to decrypt a terrorist's phone for the security services.
    bondjames wrote: »
    6. ensure that any Muslim who visits Syria, Turkey, Iraq or Yemen has to fully explain why they went there. Make the requirement onerous to discourage visits to places that neighbour war torn regions run by ISIL/ISIS/Daesh. Saudi Arabia will unfortunately have to be exempted as it is the religious home of Islam.

    Anyone (not just Muslims to avoid charges of persecution) proven to have been in any of these countries needs to come up with very good reasons why they were there otherwise they are looking at a long stretch inside.

    Except for anyone returning from Syria. There is literally no conceivable reason why anyone would be in Syria in the current climate unless they work for the press (so they can produce an accredited press pass), a registered charity (similar credentials would need to be produced) or the armed or security services. Anyone else instant life sentence or just plain executed. Saying 'I went to visit my family' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The foreign office would advertise it heavily beforehand that British citizens are not just 'advised against' travelling to but are actually banned from travelling to Syria. Anyone found to have done so will automatically get sent down upon re-entering the country.

    In addition we're going to need new prisons for anyone convicted of terror offences. There's no point in locking all these preachers up for life only to allow them to radicalise mugs like this Massood who are just inside for a few years for GBH.

    Convicts inside for terror offences need to have a separate wing like nonces away from the rest of the prison population with solitary confinement for the duration of their sentence, no access to Internet, no calls, no Koran and no halal menu just prison slop.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't think indefinite internment is practical. Basically that would be a Guantanamo for the UK, but on UK soil. I'm sure there are legal ramifications for such an approach.

    While I can appreciate that security measures must be beefed up in the interest of public safety, I believe there are far less intrusive measures that can (and must) be taken to change the culture. Some suggestions:

    1. ensure hate speech which incites violence is reported. Offer substantial financial rewards if need be, to encourage snitching on hate mongers in madrassas. Ensure that intelligence operatives are stationed in the largest and most popular ones 'as a legal requirement' in the interest of public security and safety. If nobody is doing anything wrong, they have nothing to be worried about.
    2. limit the number of 'places of worship' or ensure they are better regulated and subject to more stringent rules prior to being eligible for charity status. Most important of all is that they 'must' be strongly encouraged to teach ('preach'?) a UK first ideology before any religious affiliation as a pre-condition. This should apply to all religious schools, and not just Muslim ones.
    3. limit the number of units in community housing and social assistance housing in a specific neighbourhood that is eligible for people from a certain religious background, to ensure better integration/assimilation and avoid fuelling 'religious ghettos' subsidized by the government & taxpayer.
    4. do not ban religious symbols (such as burqa, niqab, chador etc.) but ensure they cannot be used in places of work etc. Only in private and at places of worship. Why not ban them entirely? Well, because that will play into the terrorist's hands and give them a tool to incite the believers. Ensure that the requirement also applies to kippahs and other overt religious symbols.
    5. levy fines on google, facebook etc. (and make them quite substantial) for any instances of violence inciting religious rhetoric (including bomb making etc.). While we all benefit from greater information these days, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to incite hatred and violence.
    6. ensure that any Muslim who visits Syria, Turkey, Iraq or Yemen has to fully explain why they went there. Make the requirement onerous to discourage visits to places that neighbour war torn regions run by ISIL/ISIS/Daesh. Saudi Arabia will unfortunately have to be exempted as it is the religious home of Islam.

    Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. I'm sure there are a lot more ideas that can work.

    What is a UK first ideology?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    What is a UK first ideology?
    Allegiance to your home first and foremost. In fact, as I think more about it, I think it should be a requirement for everyone to reaffirm their loyalty to the country of citizenship and its core values from time to time. Just like how one renews a driver's license. The problem we seem to be facing is that many of these radical jihadis were actually born in the country. Therefore they actually have the privilege of citizenship from birth without realizing or appreciating the benefit of it, which perhaps a first generation refugee who actually had to flee persecution elsewhere would.

    I am not sure what the criteria could be, but some basic civic and historical knowledge would be a start, followed by some sort of duty. In Israel and Switzerland for instance, everyone has to do a stint in the military. I'm not suggesting something so drastic as conscription, but certainly asking people to, from time to time, show that they have a degree of loyalty and pride in their country of citizenship is not too much to ask I would think. Something similar to what new citizens have to do before gaining citizenship is a start.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Except for anyone returning from Syria. There is literally no conceivable reason why anyone would be in Syria in the current climate unless they work for the press (so they can produce an accredited press pass), a registered charity (similar credentials would need to be produced) or the armed or security services. Anyone else instant life sentence or just plain executed. Saying 'I went to visit my family' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The foreign office would advertise it heavily beforehand that British citizens are not just 'advised against' travelling to but are actually banned from travelling to Syria. Anyone found to have done so will automatically get sent down upon re-entering the country.
    I agree fully. There is no excuse for being in Syria except for the reasons you note. I mentioned Turkey above because that is the gateway through which many enter Syria to fight for their cause.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    In addition we're going to need new prisons for anyone convicted of terror offences. There's no point in locking all these preachers up for life only to allow them to radicalise mugs like this Massood who are just inside for a few years for GBH.

    Convicts inside for terror offences need to have a separate wing like nonces away from the rest of the prison population with solitary confinement for the duration of their sentence, no access to Internet, no calls, no Koran and no halal menu just prison slop.
    Again, I fully agree. The penalties must be more severe, and they must be prevented from polluting the prison clan. No Koran is a no brainer, and if they must have halal, then the cost must be born by the Muslim community and not the taxpayer at large.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    For me,i don't see why we should sustain them and pay for their prison comforts.

    TREACHERY = DEATH PENALTY.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    What is a UK first ideology?
    Allegiance to your home first and foremost. In fact, as I think more about it, I think it should be a requirement for everyone to reaffirm their loyalty to the country of citizenship and its core values from time to time. Just like how one renews a driver's license. The problem we seem to be facing is that many of these radical jihadis were actually born in the country. Therefore they actually have the privilege of citizenship from birth without realizing or appreciating the benefit of it, which perhaps a first generation refugee who actually had to flee persecution elsewhere would.

    I am not sure what the criteria could be, but some basic civic and historical knowledge would be a start, followed by some sort of duty. In Israel and Switzerland for instance, everyone has to do a stint in the military. I'm not suggesting something so drastic as conscription, but certainly asking people to, from time to time, show that they have a degree of loyalty and pride in their country of citizenship is not too much to ask I would think. Something similar to what new citizens have to do before gaining citizenship is a start.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Except for anyone returning from Syria. There is literally no conceivable reason why anyone would be in Syria in the current climate unless they work for the press (so they can produce an accredited press pass), a registered charity (similar credentials would need to be produced) or the armed or security services. Anyone else instant life sentence or just plain executed. Saying 'I went to visit my family' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The foreign office would advertise it heavily beforehand that British citizens are not just 'advised against' travelling to but are actually banned from travelling to Syria. Anyone found to have done so will automatically get sent down upon re-entering the country.
    I agree fully. There is no excuse for being in Syria except for the reasons you note. I mentioned Turkey above because that is the gateway through which many enter Syria to fight for their cause.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    In addition we're going to need new prisons for anyone convicted of terror offences. There's no point in locking all these preachers up for life only to allow them to radicalise mugs like this Massood who are just inside for a few years for GBH.

    Convicts inside for terror offences need to have a separate wing like nonces away from the rest of the prison population with solitary confinement for the duration of their sentence, no access to Internet, no calls, no Koran and no halal menu just prison slop.
    Again, I fully agree. The penalties must be more severe, and they must be prevented from polluting the prison clan. No Koran is a no brainer, and if they must have halal, then the cost must be born by the Muslim community and not the taxpayer at large.

    Hmm. You see as a Christian God is first for me. Before anything.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    What is a UK first ideology?
    Allegiance to your home first and foremost. In fact, as I think more about it, I think it should be a requirement for everyone to reaffirm their loyalty to the country of citizenship and its core values from time to time. Just like how one renews a driver's license. The problem we seem to be facing is that many of these radical jihadis were actually born in the country. Therefore they actually have the privilege of citizenship from birth without realizing or appreciating the benefit of it, which perhaps a first generation refugee who actually had to flee persecution elsewhere would.

    I am not sure what the criteria could be, but some basic civic and historical knowledge would be a start, followed by some sort of duty. In Israel and Switzerland for instance, everyone has to do a stint in the military. I'm not suggesting something so drastic as conscription, but certainly asking people to, from time to time, show that they have a degree of loyalty and pride in their country of citizenship is not too much to ask I would think. Something similar to what new citizens have to do before gaining citizenship is a start.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Except for anyone returning from Syria. There is literally no conceivable reason why anyone would be in Syria in the current climate unless they work for the press (so they can produce an accredited press pass), a registered charity (similar credentials would need to be produced) or the armed or security services. Anyone else instant life sentence or just plain executed. Saying 'I went to visit my family' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The foreign office would advertise it heavily beforehand that British citizens are not just 'advised against' travelling to but are actually banned from travelling to Syria. Anyone found to have done so will automatically get sent down upon re-entering the country.
    I agree fully. There is no excuse for being in Syria except for the reasons you note. I mentioned Turkey above because that is the gateway through which many enter Syria to fight for their cause.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    In addition we're going to need new prisons for anyone convicted of terror offences. There's no point in locking all these preachers up for life only to allow them to radicalise mugs like this Massood who are just inside for a few years for GBH.

    Convicts inside for terror offences need to have a separate wing like nonces away from the rest of the prison population with solitary confinement for the duration of their sentence, no access to Internet, no calls, no Koran and no halal menu just prison slop.
    Again, I fully agree. The penalties must be more severe, and they must be prevented from polluting the prison clan. No Koran is a no brainer, and if they must have halal, then the cost must be born by the Muslim community and not the taxpayer at large.

    Hmm. You see as a Christian God is first for me. Before anything.
    I can understand that. The problem is the other team feels the same way as well.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    But t
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    What is a UK first ideology?
    Allegiance to your home first and foremost. In fact, as I think more about it, I think it should be a requirement for everyone to reaffirm their loyalty to the country of citizenship and its core values from time to time. Just like how one renews a driver's license. The problem we seem to be facing is that many of these radical jihadis were actually born in the country. Therefore they actually have the privilege of citizenship from birth without realizing or appreciating the benefit of it, which perhaps a first generation refugee who actually had to flee persecution elsewhere would.

    I am not sure what the criteria could be, but some basic civic and historical knowledge would be a start, followed by some sort of duty. In Israel and Switzerland for instance, everyone has to do a stint in the military. I'm not suggesting something so drastic as conscription, but certainly asking people to, from time to time, show that they have a degree of loyalty and pride in their country of citizenship is not too much to ask I would think. Something similar to what new citizens have to do before gaining citizenship is a start.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Except for anyone returning from Syria. There is literally no conceivable reason why anyone would be in Syria in the current climate unless they work for the press (so they can produce an accredited press pass), a registered charity (similar credentials would need to be produced) or the armed or security services. Anyone else instant life sentence or just plain executed. Saying 'I went to visit my family' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The foreign office would advertise it heavily beforehand that British citizens are not just 'advised against' travelling to but are actually banned from travelling to Syria. Anyone found to have done so will automatically get sent down upon re-entering the country.
    I agree fully. There is no excuse for being in Syria except for the reasons you note. I mentioned Turkey above because that is the gateway through which many enter Syria to fight for their cause.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    In addition we're going to need new prisons for anyone convicted of terror offences. There's no point in locking all these preachers up for life only to allow them to radicalise mugs like this Massood who are just inside for a few years for GBH.

    Convicts inside for terror offences need to have a separate wing like nonces away from the rest of the prison population with solitary confinement for the duration of their sentence, no access to Internet, no calls, no Koran and no halal menu just prison slop.
    Again, I fully agree. The penalties must be more severe, and they must be prevented from polluting the prison clan. No Koran is a no brainer, and if they must have halal, then the cost must be born by the Muslim community and not the taxpayer at large.

    Hmm. You see as a Christian God is first for me. Before anything.
    I can understand that. The problem is the other team feels the same way as well.

    But this is a Christian country,i think sometimes our identity is so mixed up now that people forget that.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    But t
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    What is a UK first ideology?
    Allegiance to your home first and foremost. In fact, as I think more about it, I think it should be a requirement for everyone to reaffirm their loyalty to the country of citizenship and its core values from time to time. Just like how one renews a driver's license. The problem we seem to be facing is that many of these radical jihadis were actually born in the country. Therefore they actually have the privilege of citizenship from birth without realizing or appreciating the benefit of it, which perhaps a first generation refugee who actually had to flee persecution elsewhere would.

    I am not sure what the criteria could be, but some basic civic and historical knowledge would be a start, followed by some sort of duty. In Israel and Switzerland for instance, everyone has to do a stint in the military. I'm not suggesting something so drastic as conscription, but certainly asking people to, from time to time, show that they have a degree of loyalty and pride in their country of citizenship is not too much to ask I would think. Something similar to what new citizens have to do before gaining citizenship is a start.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Except for anyone returning from Syria. There is literally no conceivable reason why anyone would be in Syria in the current climate unless they work for the press (so they can produce an accredited press pass), a registered charity (similar credentials would need to be produced) or the armed or security services. Anyone else instant life sentence or just plain executed. Saying 'I went to visit my family' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The foreign office would advertise it heavily beforehand that British citizens are not just 'advised against' travelling to but are actually banned from travelling to Syria. Anyone found to have done so will automatically get sent down upon re-entering the country.
    I agree fully. There is no excuse for being in Syria except for the reasons you note. I mentioned Turkey above because that is the gateway through which many enter Syria to fight for their cause.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    In addition we're going to need new prisons for anyone convicted of terror offences. There's no point in locking all these preachers up for life only to allow them to radicalise mugs like this Massood who are just inside for a few years for GBH.

    Convicts inside for terror offences need to have a separate wing like nonces away from the rest of the prison population with solitary confinement for the duration of their sentence, no access to Internet, no calls, no Koran and no halal menu just prison slop.
    Again, I fully agree. The penalties must be more severe, and they must be prevented from polluting the prison clan. No Koran is a no brainer, and if they must have halal, then the cost must be born by the Muslim community and not the taxpayer at large.

    Hmm. You see as a Christian God is first for me. Before anything.
    I can understand that. The problem is the other team feels the same way as well.

    But this is a Christian country,i think sometimes our identity is so mixed up now that people forget that.
    Fair enough, but then we go further away from secularist or laïcité principles. That's precisely why they think those Middle east wars are being fought. They believe it's a cultural war. A clash of civilizations.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited March 2017 Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    What is a UK first ideology?
    Allegiance to your home first and foremost. In fact, as I think more about it, I think it should be a requirement for everyone to reaffirm their loyalty to the country of citizenship and its core values from time to time. Just like how one renews a driver's license. The problem we seem to be facing is that many of these radical jihadis were actually born in the country. Therefore they actually have the privilege of citizenship from birth without realizing or appreciating the benefit of it, which perhaps a first generation refugee who actually had to flee persecution elsewhere would.

    I am not sure what the criteria could be, but some basic civic and historical knowledge would be a start, followed by some sort of duty. In Israel and Switzerland for instance, everyone has to do a stint in the military. I'm not suggesting something so drastic as conscription, but certainly asking people to, from time to time, show that they have a degree of loyalty and pride in their country of citizenship is not too much to ask I would think. Something similar to what new citizens have to do before gaining citizenship is a start.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Except for anyone returning from Syria. There is literally no conceivable reason why anyone would be in Syria in the current climate unless they work for the press (so they can produce an accredited press pass), a registered charity (similar credentials would need to be produced) or the armed or security services. Anyone else instant life sentence or just plain executed. Saying 'I went to visit my family' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The foreign office would advertise it heavily beforehand that British citizens are not just 'advised against' travelling to but are actually banned from travelling to Syria. Anyone found to have done so will automatically get sent down upon re-entering the country.
    I agree fully. There is no excuse for being in Syria except for the reasons you note. I mentioned Turkey above because that is the gateway through which many enter Syria to fight for their cause.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    In addition we're going to need new prisons for anyone convicted of terror offences. There's no point in locking all these preachers up for life only to allow them to radicalise mugs like this Massood who are just inside for a few years for GBH.

    Convicts inside for terror offences need to have a separate wing like nonces away from the rest of the prison population with solitary confinement for the duration of their sentence, no access to Internet, no calls, no Koran and no halal menu just prison slop.
    Again, I fully agree. The penalties must be more severe, and they must be prevented from polluting the prison clan. No Koran is a no brainer, and if they must have halal, then the cost must be born by the Muslim community and not the taxpayer at large.

    Hmm. You see as a Christian God is first for me. Before anything.
    I can understand that. The problem is the other team feels the same way as well.

    Yes, but their God isn't real :) There is only one God.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    What is a UK first ideology?
    Allegiance to your home first and foremost. In fact, as I think more about it, I think it should be a requirement for everyone to reaffirm their loyalty to the country of citizenship and its core values from time to time. Just like how one renews a driver's license. The problem we seem to be facing is that many of these radical jihadis were actually born in the country. Therefore they actually have the privilege of citizenship from birth without realizing or appreciating the benefit of it, which perhaps a first generation refugee who actually had to flee persecution elsewhere would.

    I am not sure what the criteria could be, but some basic civic and historical knowledge would be a start, followed by some sort of duty. In Israel and Switzerland for instance, everyone has to do a stint in the military. I'm not suggesting something so drastic as conscription, but certainly asking people to, from time to time, show that they have a degree of loyalty and pride in their country of citizenship is not too much to ask I would think. Something similar to what new citizens have to do before gaining citizenship is a start.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Except for anyone returning from Syria. There is literally no conceivable reason why anyone would be in Syria in the current climate unless they work for the press (so they can produce an accredited press pass), a registered charity (similar credentials would need to be produced) or the armed or security services. Anyone else instant life sentence or just plain executed. Saying 'I went to visit my family' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The foreign office would advertise it heavily beforehand that British citizens are not just 'advised against' travelling to but are actually banned from travelling to Syria. Anyone found to have done so will automatically get sent down upon re-entering the country.
    I agree fully. There is no excuse for being in Syria except for the reasons you note. I mentioned Turkey above because that is the gateway through which many enter Syria to fight for their cause.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    In addition we're going to need new prisons for anyone convicted of terror offences. There's no point in locking all these preachers up for life only to allow them to radicalise mugs like this Massood who are just inside for a few years for GBH.

    Convicts inside for terror offences need to have a separate wing like nonces away from the rest of the prison population with solitary confinement for the duration of their sentence, no access to Internet, no calls, no Koran and no halal menu just prison slop.
    Again, I fully agree. The penalties must be more severe, and they must be prevented from polluting the prison clan. No Koran is a no brainer, and if they must have halal, then the cost must be born by the Muslim community and not the taxpayer at large.

    Hmm. You see as a Christian God is first for me. Before anything.
    I can understand that. The problem is the other team feels the same way as well.

    Yes, but their God isn't real :) There is only one God.

    Hear hear !!

    +1

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Oh dear. This isn't going to get solved soon imho.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited March 2017 Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    But t
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    What is a UK first ideology?
    Allegiance to your home first and foremost. In fact, as I think more about it, I think it should be a requirement for everyone to reaffirm their loyalty to the country of citizenship and its core values from time to time. Just like how one renews a driver's license. The problem we seem to be facing is that many of these radical jihadis were actually born in the country. Therefore they actually have the privilege of citizenship from birth without realizing or appreciating the benefit of it, which perhaps a first generation refugee who actually had to flee persecution elsewhere would.

    I am not sure what the criteria could be, but some basic civic and historical knowledge would be a start, followed by some sort of duty. In Israel and Switzerland for instance, everyone has to do a stint in the military. I'm not suggesting something so drastic as conscription, but certainly asking people to, from time to time, show that they have a degree of loyalty and pride in their country of citizenship is not too much to ask I would think. Something similar to what new citizens have to do before gaining citizenship is a start.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Except for anyone returning from Syria. There is literally no conceivable reason why anyone would be in Syria in the current climate unless they work for the press (so they can produce an accredited press pass), a registered charity (similar credentials would need to be produced) or the armed or security services. Anyone else instant life sentence or just plain executed. Saying 'I went to visit my family' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The foreign office would advertise it heavily beforehand that British citizens are not just 'advised against' travelling to but are actually banned from travelling to Syria. Anyone found to have done so will automatically get sent down upon re-entering the country.
    I agree fully. There is no excuse for being in Syria except for the reasons you note. I mentioned Turkey above because that is the gateway through which many enter Syria to fight for their cause.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    In addition we're going to need new prisons for anyone convicted of terror offences. There's no point in locking all these preachers up for life only to allow them to radicalise mugs like this Massood who are just inside for a few years for GBH.

    Convicts inside for terror offences need to have a separate wing like nonces away from the rest of the prison population with solitary confinement for the duration of their sentence, no access to Internet, no calls, no Koran and no halal menu just prison slop.
    Again, I fully agree. The penalties must be more severe, and they must be prevented from polluting the prison clan. No Koran is a no brainer, and if they must have halal, then the cost must be born by the Muslim community and not the taxpayer at large.

    Hmm. You see as a Christian God is first for me. Before anything.
    I can understand that. The problem is the other team feels the same way as well.

    But this is a Christian country,i think sometimes our identity is so mixed up now that people forget that.
    Fair enough, but then we go further away from secularist or laïcité principles. That's precisely why they think those Middle east wars are being fought. They believe it's a cultural war. A clash of civilizations.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    I actually sympathise with the view that some 'hardline Muslims' have about our culture. Obviously killing people because of it is abhorrent and completely wrong. The 'moral compass' in our society is a bit off at times to be honest.

    In Octopussy Orlov says that the West is decadent and divided. There is some truth in that to be honest.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Hmm You see a Christian God is first for me. Before anything.
    barryt007 wrote: »

    But this is a Christian country,i think sometimes our identity is so mixed up now that people forget that.
    tanaka123 wrote: »

    Yes, but their God isn't real :) There is only one God.

    I'm really hoping you guys are joking now.
  • patbpatb
    edited March 2017 Posts: 4,615
    barryt007 wrote: »
    For me,i don't see why we should sustain them and pay for their prison comforts.

    TREACHERY = DEATH PENALTY.

    Not that usefull for suicide bombers. These guys want to die. The guy last week must have had full knowledge that he would have been shot. He is doing God's work and will be rewarded. Death is not a penatly and use of the phrase "death penalty" is a reminder of how far our mainstream values are from extreme Islam as well as an oxymoron. It should be death reward.

    All armed forces think that God is on their side. (http://www.army.mod.uk/chaplains/chaplains.aspx) And this, for me, is the crux of the issue. I cant work out how anyone can criticize the irrationality of a religious extremist whilst they worship their own God. It's two sides of the same coin.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,993
    Word of caution here : remember Jean Charles de Menezes ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

    Just saying, that's all.
This discussion has been closed.