Alan Henning killed.

[Glaucus]

Nothing of the sort, where have I said anywhere just seize their assets before a crime is committed.
Authorities are usually mire that. aware of who is missing. It is very easy to then follow the family. You raise a second mortgage it flags up. When you try transferring the funds or you take finds out and pass on to a criminal element you are arrested and it's very easy to stop such electronic transactions.

So no, nothing like you say. It's not arresting in ice t people, it's not seizing money before anything happened,

 

[Tefal]

Nothing like china, seizing assets in the act of a crime is normal and happens all the time.

Or UPI perpetuate and increase kidnappings and fund such organisations, that's such a great idea. Far far less would get kidnapped if they knew negotiations wouldn't lead to huge sums of money.

Such ransoms are making it much more risky for charities to go in and help.

you know most kidnapping ransoms could probbaly be paid off with the change you have rattling round your current account at the minute?

not many are for massive sums.

oh and you'd know all the time your not paying that your loved one is being savagely tortured and frequetly on the phone to you begging for you to pay.

most [people would turn to less than legal streams of revenue in that case.

 

[Tefal]

Nothing of the sort, where have I said anywhere just seize their assets before a crime is committed.
Authorities are usually mire that. aware of who is missing. It is very easy to then follow the family. You raise a second mortgage it flags up. When you try transferring the funds or you take finds out and pass on to a criminal element you are arrested and it's very easy to stop such electronic transactions.

So no, nothing like you say. It's not arresting in ice t people, it's not seizing money before anything happened,

so having a family member kidnapped means you now have unjustified surveillance of all family members?

So if your brother gets kidnapped you'd be happy with your mortgage aplications being blocked for the next few years?

 

[Castiel]

Nothing of the sort, where have I said anywhere just seize their assets before a crime is committed.
Authorities are usually mire that. aware of who is missing. It is very easy to then follow the family. You raise a second mortgage it flags up. When you try transferring the funds or you take finds out and pass on to a criminal element you are arrested and it's very easy to stop such electronic transactions.

So no, nothing like you say. It's not arresting in ice t people, it's not seizing money before anything happened,

So you wait until the transaction is complete and therefore the victim released and then arrest them?

You are also saying that victims families (victims themselves) should be subject to investigation, surveillance, search and seizure.

As far as stopping transactions, it is not difficult to circumvent that. A simple mortgage transaction from your bank, deposited to an intermediaries shell account outside local jurisdictions isn't hard. You don't even have to do that, with an organised system you could hide the transaction as a bone fide purchase, you could set up a trust in lieu of a cash advance from a third party to be paid after the fact through that trust. There are hundred of ways to do this and that's just a few off the top of my head in the 5 minutes it took to write this post.

 

[Glaucus]

You don't need to wait until it's exchanged hand, that's not how the law works atm anyway. But yes you need to approve intent. I am in no way of saying scrap current legal framework. It just needs random payments being criminalised and using current framework to enforce it.

Police would still need probable intent and court order for surveillance.
Names are usually released in public videos so it's usually pretty obvious who to investigate.

Because hiding money in such a way fools intelligence agencies. LOL, if it's that easy you should join intelligence and show them where they are going so wrong. On something so easy.

 

[Diddums]

Quite tragic that a thread dedicated to the horrendous murder of one person has devolved into this, especially as there is already a thread for discussing IS.


Condolences to his family, I can't even begin to imagine what they're going through. Sky news iinterviewed his brother, the guy looked completely broken.

 

[Castiel]

You don't need to wait until it's exchanged hand, that's not how the law works atm anyway. But yes you need to approve intent. I am in no way of saying scrap current legal framework. It just needs random payments being criminalised and using current framework to enforce it.

Police would still need probable intent and court order for surveillance.
Names are usually released in public videos so it's usually pretty obvious who to investigate.

Because hiding money in such a way fools intelligence agencies. LOL

It's pretty easy to transfer money through a third party. You are assuming that people (kidnappers) will not react to such laws.

Kidnapper takes a hostage.

Contacts family through an intermediary.

Family agrees to pay ransom.

Intermediary shows proofs and assurances of release. Intermediary offers to arrange advance payment upon receipt of assurances from family. Intermediary has access to solicitors/bankers/funds necessary to facilitate such transfers of assets for a fee.

Family has thus far done nothing that the authorities can assume as being suspicious. Ransom gets paid. Hostage is released.

Family owes ransom to intermediary, loan is set up to repay the intermediary through the intermediaries own shell corporation. House or assets are leveraged through intermediaries legal organisation to guarantee or repay the loan over a given timeframe.

And this is something I can think up in a few minutes. The point being that such a law that tries to do this would be impractical, use massive resources (better served actually stopping hostage taking in the first place) and be a legal and political minefield.

The fact is that it is already against the law to pay a ransom to a terrorist organisation or individual. But largely that crime is unenforceable due to the nature of the perpetrators also being the victims.

This is why Aid Agencies and Charities are beginning to stop sending US (and now British) aid workers to regions where their is a high risk of kidnapping as both Governments will not pay ransoms, whereas other European nations will...surprisingly the nations who do pay ransoms find their citizens are safer as they get released whereas US citizens are simply killed instead. Either way the kidnapper wins.

 

[Glaucus]

Something you can think of in a few minutes and unlikely to work. You assume intelligence afpgency and police are worthless.

Intelligence agency is already all over non returning people. As they maybe fighting. so as they do that they can flag suspected kidnapped as well.

You seem to think intelligence do nothing.


And since when has people getting away with braking the law ever, meant we might as well not do it. In that case lets throw all laws out, as not everyone is caught.

Your argument really is terrible.

It is not unworkable, it is however a political minefield which is the real issue and why a random law needs to be created and enforced. Rather than using a third party law, on the fringe of what it's designed for.

 

[Castiel]

It already happens, so it's not so worthless I'm afraid. My argument isn't terrible either, it's is essentially how many governments and NGOs already deal with ransoms and kidnappings, particularly with regard to circumventing US international enforcement of its 'no support for terrorists" agenda. The same cannot be said for your argument which evidence shows is actually endangering citizens of countries who have such laws already far more than those who do not.

The story of James Foley in The Telegraph illustrates this and underlines and supports the points I have made here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...to-pay-ransom-close-family-friend-claims.html

 

[Glaucus]

Now bringing us into uk law, how does that relate?
Of course people will try to break it, that does not support your points.

The only point you make I agree with is political mindfield meaning existing laws aren't enforced.

Which would be very different if goverment came out and said it is not acceptable to put even more people at risk and created a targeted law. It is enforceable for most cases.

But rather than discussing where you think it's a good idea or not, you try and think if way Ps around it, with no idea of the capabilities of the intelligence agency. Which is obviously fairly good. As the arrests of returning combatants shows.

 

[Castiel]

Now bringing us into uk law, how does that relate?
Of course people will try to break it, that does not support your points.

The only point you make I agree with is political mindfield meaning existing laws aren't enforced.

Which would be very different if goverment came out and said it is not acceptable to put even more people at risk and created a targeted law. It is enforceable for most cases.

It's easily circumvented. And good luck trying to retain public opinion when you lock up the victim and their family for paying, or even attempting to pay a ransom, as well as explaining the death of the victim if you stop the ransom being paid.

The U.S. Already have a targeted law against ransom payments, it is routinely circumvented however.

But rather than discussing where you think it's a good idea or not, you try and think if way Ps around it, with no idea of the capabilities of the intelligence agency. Which is obviously fairly good. As the arrests of returning combatants shows.

I have a pretty good idea of the capabilities of our intelligence agencies and more importantly their enthusiasm or rather lack of it for using valuable and limited resources in conducting investigation and surveillance on the victims families rather than on finding the actual perpetrators themselves.

And I have said already that while I understand the ideal behind such an opinion, I also understand that in practice it doesn't work and is in fact counterproductive to the actual desired result, which is the safe release of the victim. Evidence bears this out, as the above article supports. So based on a considered evaluation of what we actually know, the data from those countries who do and do not have such laws regarding ransoms, the conclusion is that as far as the safety of the victim is concerned, no it's not a good idea.

 

[Destination]

indeed, in August the French government came under heavy criticism for paying ransom to get some of their people out. The local French view appeared to be, 'it is different for us, our government will do what they can to make use safe - the US government makes it clear that if you are abroad alone, you are on your own'.

 

[semi-pro waster]

depends what you mean by children - AFAIK it was teenage girls, they've been through puberty...

I mean children in the sense of not being adults and having reached the age of consent because that's how the poster I was replying to appeared to be using the term. Whether the criminals in this case were paedophiles, hebephiles or ephebophiles wasn't a distinction that seemed necessary in the general discussion. However if you want we can acknowledge that it's a crime of statutory rape and abuse of those beyond puberty but before the age of consent.

If you've got a group of guys who are sexually repressed (in this case by religious/cultural values) then they'll still try to find an outlet - they can't date girls from their own community (they're supposed to be pure/wait for marriage) so they've targeted vulnerable teenage girls who are non-muslim so don't matter to them. They're not quite 'women' per say but they're at an age where in some countries they'd be able to get married - not the ideal solution for a heterosexual man but it's all they've got. Granted some of them were married guys too - though if they've only been with one woman their whole life and that woman was brought up in a religiously conservative environment then...

Likewise some drunk guys end up pulling fat girls who they're not quite attracted to as it's the only option available to them at the time.

Catholic priests seem to have a higher portion of gay men amongst them than the population as a whole, they're also largely sexually repressed - some of them seemingly have taken it out on the choir boys....

Your argument seems to be an indirect one though, religion (or culture) isn't directly condoning the actions of these people, it is however creating the conditions in which such actions might be an outlet. That is, of course, also difficult to address.

I said religion or culture in Pakistan child abuse is at insanely high levels regarding young girls so yes it does seem to be seen as acceptable.

Apologies, I didn't notice the word culture in your post previously.

But child abuse isn't that high on the ranking of things outside the west in much of the developing world it's come place both sexual and just violence. It's your viewpoint as a Western/British raised citizen that makes you see it so bad.

As does a lot there and over here in the communities when it is a female victim.

When a person is seen as sub human or not equal the average person is willing to do disgusting things they would never have contemplated against one of thier own.

We've seen this time and time again though history

If you want me to agree that people are often terrible to each other then I'm fine with that. All too often history is littered with examples of people who have done unspeakable things to others for any reason or no reason at all.

 

[RDM]

Do you not have any self respect ?

Plenty thanks, you?

Using Alan Hennings death to get a dig in against muslims.
and please don't act like you're angered on behalf of Alan Henning.

I'm not angered about his death, it was fairly inevitable so it was more resignation than anger. I am also not using it to make a dig against Muslims, more that I was questioning the other posters assertions that there is no need for Muslims as a group to speak up. They do speak up on a regular basis just not on all subjects.

He knew the risks yet chose to stay and help those people, he was a hero to those people and they care a damn lot more about him than you who uses his death as a justification to hate against the very cause he was helping...ie the muslims.

No hate involved from me I'm afraid.

 

[Castiel]

I'm not angered about his death, it was fairly inevitable so it was more resignation than anger. I am also not using it to make a dig against Muslims, more that I was questioning the other posters assertions that there is no need for Muslims as a group to speak up. They do speak up on a regular basis just not on all subjects.

They have spoken up quite vociferously on the subject of ISIL and the kidnapping and now death of Alan Henning.

Holding Muslims to higher standards than everyone else however is disingenuous as no group, be it institutional or informal speaks out on ALL subjects, nor are they expected to.

Whether you realise it it not, you do come across as being prejudiced. Whether you actually are or not, who knows.

 

[RDM]

They have spoken up quite vociferously on the subject of ISIL and the kidnapping and now death of Alan Henning.

Nowhere near to the same degree as the Danish cartoons as an example. You can get crowds on the street, death threats and riots from a cartoon.

Holding Muslims to higher standards than everyone else however is disingenuous as no group, be it institutional or informal speaks out on ALL subjects, nor are they expected to.

No but the subjects that they do speak out against compared to those they don't can be fairly interesting.

Whether you realise it it not, you do come across as being prejudiced. Whether you actually are or not, who knows.

Not really sure it matters to be honest. For some posters any criticism at all of Islam is indicative of deep racial prejudices. If pointing out that the Muslim community can indeed be vociferous when it chooses means I am prejudiced then I'll have to accept the label.

 

[Castiel]

Nowhere near to the same degree as the Danish cartoons as an example. You can get crowds on the street, death threats and riots from a cartoon.

Actually it is far more, the cartoons were protested by a small minority who were, like such groups, very vocal and went to extremes which gets into the mass media. Here we have almost a universal condemnation of ISIL and the murder of Alan Henning from all kinds of Muslim groups and the average Muslim person on the street. Not quite so news friendly, but the reality is that it is far greater in extent and authenticity.

No but the subjects that they do speak out against compared to those they don't can be fairly interesting.

No different from anyone else. You are holding Muslims to a different standard than everyone else, why is that?

Not really sure it matters to be honest. For some posters any criticism at all of Islam is indicative of deep racial prejudices. If pointing out that the Muslim community can indeed be vociferous when it chooses means I am prejudiced then I'll have to accept the label.

I think it matters as far a objectivity and rationality is concerned. But if you accept your prejudices as being acceptable then fine, that is your choice. We all have our prejudices, it is whether we recognise them and how they affect our rationality and objectivity that matters.

 

[sports_brah]

My only real opinion on this matter is that any British citizen found to gone to these countries should have their passports revoked at the very least. Would much rather see them tried for treason, as the values of these scum is in direct violation of British society.

 

[RDM]

No different from anyone else. You are holding Muslims to a different standard than everyone else, why is that?

No I'm not, but it would be a bit strange to go on about the accountability of , say, teachers as a group in a thread about IS.

I think it matters as far a objectivity and rationality is concerned. But if you accept your prejudices as being acceptable then fine, that is your choice. We all have our prejudices, it is whether we recognise them and how they affect our rationality and objectivity that matters.

I think you misunderstand me, I do not care if you think I am prejudiced or not. Not whether I am prejudiced or not.

 

[RDM]

My only real opinion on this matter is that any British citizen found to gone to these countries should have their passports revoked at the very least. Would much rather see them tried for treason, as the values of these scum is in direct violation of British society.

You need to be a little bit more specific because as you statement stands above you think that Alan Henning should also have had his passport revoked...