London Bridge Incident

If you are on the list it isn't for no reason.

That's some pretty 1984 stuff going on there. Who decides what gets you on a list? Suppose you are a Muslim student studying physics and you do a load of research on nuclear fissile materials and bomb design?
 
who said targeted? the snoopers charter applies to everyone, yourself included.

You did. Read your own post.

I have no problem with them combatting radicalisation via the Internet, if it stopped there happy days but chances are it wouldn't.
 
If you are on the list it isn't for no reason. It'll be interesting to see if these 3 were on the 3000 long terrorist watch list of if there were part of the 20000 who are suspected of having terrorist sympathies.


what if you're on the list?
genuinley would you be ok with being detained with all those other people?

maybe one of your mates is secretly planning to0 bomb a mosque or soemthing and your on the list due to your conenction and you twos anti islamic oncersations making them think you may be part of the plot.
 
one thing i do wonder is just how many people who are members of ocuk, a forum with many criminals on it, would be happy being assumed to know about those criminals activity?

i bet you spend more time talking on here than the folks spends in a mosque with an extremist.

Come on tefal,

Again, it's just gong into liberal left views isn't it.?

Your now comparing, trying to level out. Group all criminal activities together. So all BAD people are the same as terrorists. No concentrating on the people who are responsible today.
 
I must be missing something here, that's exactly why my comment about May and the Internet was posted. Every chance she gets she attacks the Internet.
Don't be ridiculous, having governments internationally work to regulate some areas of the internet to the same standard as the real world isn't "attacking the internet". What is it you want to do on the internet exactly you think will be regulated against?

Whilst I don't subscribe to the "if you're doing nothing wrong you don't need to worry" theory I do tend to agree the time has come where the online world should be held to the same standards as offline. It's something which needs to be agreed internationally with other democratic counties however which is not a bad thing.
 
Don't be ridiculous, having governments internationally work to regulate some areas of the internet to the same standard as the real world isn't "attacking the internet". What is it you want to do on the internet exactly you think will be regulated against?

Whilst I don't subscribe to the "if you're doing nothing wrong you don't need to worry" theory I do tend to agree the time has come where the online world should be held to the same standards as offline. It's something which needs to be agreed internationally with other democratic counties however which is not a bad thing.

Ridiculous? Do your own research, May's comments/thoughts on the Internet are readily available.
 
Come on tefal,

Again, it's just gong into liberal left views isn't it.?

Your now comparing, trying to level out. Group all criminal activities together. So all BAD people are the same as terrorists. No concentrating on the people who are responsible today.


no im not im pointing out how retarded it is to say they all go to the same mosque so must all be in on it.

you talk with countless criminals every day are you in on their criminal activity?

i know someone on this forum going to commit a crime in the next 5 minutes are you responsible?
 
If you are on the list it isn't for no reason. It'll be interesting to see if these 3 were on the 3000 long terrorist watch list of if there were part of the 20000 who are suspected of having terrorist sympathies.


If you or a family member is on the list because you may have a link to somebody else on the watch list then you'd be fine being locked up?
 
out of curiosity why Islamic extremists and not say gang problems?

Because gang problems haven't done what Islamic extremists have done in the last years.

The gangs mainly kill each other.

But if a gang did what happened last night, just to go out with no other motive that to submit terror then I'd be exactly the same. However Islamic extremism is the main problem we face.
 
That's some pretty 1984 stuff going on there. Who decides what gets you on a list? Suppose you are a Muslim student studying physics and you do a load of research on nuclear fissile materials and bomb design?

Well unfortunately you would have to be kept an eye on. How else can we REALLY nip the issue in the bud.
 
no the difference is choice.

you chose to participate in the ocuk forums

you do not get to chose your participation in the uk

hence government is held to a higher standard than the private forums/moderators.

Of COURSE you can choose whether to remain in the UK, given the anti UK sentiments of some here I am very surprised they haven't exercised that choice.
 
The gangs mainly kill each other.

What about the cyclist murdered in Battersea or the father stabbed to death in Enfield, in April? What about the gangs of moped riders out to mug people who will respond with knifes if they are challenged? Islamic extremism is undoubtedly a problem, but it's far from the main issue in cities like London.
 
You're saying the bad people are already armed (which clearly isn't true considering the low levels of gun crime the UK has), yet also saying they wouldn't be able to get hold of guns if there were more of them around legally? Where do you think the illegal firearms come from? There isn't a factory for legal ones and a factory for illegal ones.

That doesn't seem to be the case for those countries that permit concealed carry.

No, I agree if firearms were legal criminals could potentially get hold of them but so could everyone else. I didn't spell that out clearly enough. There are some stats about gun crime here: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7654 and the levels are quite low.

In some cases in the US criminals have purposely targeted 'gun free zones' for their attacks because they know people will not be armed.
 
what if you're on the list?
genuinley would you be ok with being detained with all those other people?

maybe one of your mates is secretly planning to0 bomb a mosque or soemthing and your on the list due to your conenction and you twos anti islamic oncersations making them think you may be part of the plot.

Are you saying we shouldn't interrogate people on the list because it would inconvenience some of them should they be innocent? If they are innocent then they'll be found so in due time.

Anyone spreading the extreme ideology online or in mosques should be locked up - you would imagine this would be welcomed in the Muslim community if they don't want to be permanently associated with Islamic terrorism yet you can see in this thread the opposition to it. Strange.
 
no im not im pointing out how retarded it is to say they all go to the same mosque so must all be in on it.

you talk with countless criminals every day are you in on their criminal activity?

i know someone on this forum going to commit a crime in the next 5 minutes are you responsible?

No because it's Crime, not carnage. It's an issue but not related this this issue.

We need to be clear on who and what we need to concentrate on to fix this.
 
Oh right, let's lockup lots of innocent people because a small percentage of nutters have killed some innocent people

Makes sense
Glad you agree. There are an estimated 23,000 jihadis in the UK right now, compare the cost of interning them with the cost of attacks like this one and the one in Manchester last week, and all the future attacks that those 23,000 losers would like to carry out.
 
Back
Top Bottom