1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Internment / deportation of "the three thousand"

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Stolly, Jun 5, 2017.

  1. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 4,938

    There's apparently three thousand "persons of interest" in terms of radical islamist sentiment.

    There's certainly a lot of sentiment about rounding these people up, with little analysis of the detail. How would this work from a practical point of view. What effect will it have ?

    Deport them ? To where ? How to get the receiving country to accept them ?
    The UK nationals, where will they go ?
    How will you get them all at once, without a load of them going to ground ?
    Will their children go with them ?

    why would this not just backfire and recruit more terrorists, like it did in the 1970's when we did this ?
    Why should it be limited to Islamists ? In the 1970's we rounded up people on both sides.
     
  2. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 22, 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    Are they dual-nationals? If so easy, remove their British citizenship and deport to the country where they still hold nationality. Could also do a dodgy-deal with countries like Qatar or Saudi Arabia where we pay them to offer safe-haven to people we deport.

    We could round up people on both sides if there were actually two sides. At the moment though the violence is almost completely one-sided.
     
  3. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 4,938

    could we though ? i understand how deportation works is the other country has to accept them. Otherwise we'd be getting Australian convicts dumped on us because their grandfather emigrated from here.
     
  4. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 22, 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    If they have the right documentation i.e. a passport issued by a legitimate authority, then that country has to let them in. There's an issue around people who have destroyed their documentation in a misguided attempt to aid their asylum application.
     
  5. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 4,938

    Interesting. I wonder how many of the three thousand have another passport.
     
  6. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 42,613

    I don't think internment is a good idea, we've done that before.... I do think that increasing travel bans, making it easier to get travel bans (i.e. as we can already do with football hooligans) is something we should look to implementing. Also this policy of just giving a quick police interview to returnees from Syria... that perhaps does need to be reviewed.
     
  7. chrismscotland

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jul 16, 2009

    Posts: 2,411

    You would think that these 3000 people would already be getting closely watched to see if they are leaving the country, it shouldn't be that hard for the Security Services and Department of Transport to be monitoring those names against Foreign flight, ferry or train bookings given the amount of information we're asked to provide these days, making banning them leaving the country easier. It still won't stop 3 guys with knives and a fake suicide vest from doing what they did on Saturday though.
     
  8. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,316

    It would be a win-win-win for the lawyers. Look at how long it took to get rid of Hamza and HE decided to go rather than the UK Govt deporting him. Cost £Millions. Lawyers will love it.
     
  9. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,328

    Does anyone have proper figures? I saw an interview that quoted something like 150 high interest, 3000 considered potentially a danger to the UK and 20-30K persons of interest.

    I'm not sure that 3000 are necessarily people that have themselves done things like expressing support for ISIS or recently travelled to Syria, etc. but might be flagged for a variety of indicators some of them just unlucky enough to fit a generic profile.
     
  10. D3K

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 13, 2014

    Posts: 2,884

    3000? It's 23000 I've been hearing banded about.

    Vacate the Falklands, stick em all there.
     
  11. Screeeech

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 29, 2014

    Posts: 3,261

    Location: Dublin / LA

    If it can be demonstrated, that somebody of immigrant status is participating in extremist activities, and where there's concrete evidence that they're a definite threat - go ahead and deport, with immediate effect.

    But it has to be concrete, and highly targeted and we have to be very careful, knee-jerk legislation and reactions haven't always gone very smoothly.

    One thing that bothers me, is that as soon as it begins - it'll trigger a spate of attacks, as people go on the run, or into hiding as soon as the authorities come smashing their doors down - but overall, I'd rather risk it and get the very worst deported immediately, especially as they're more likely than not, to attack anyway - whether they're deported to not.
     
  12. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,152

    Almost certainly will increase the number of terrorist attacks and produce longer term problems. this is the exact kind of response that the terrorists want the the west to do.
     
  13. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,152

    This is already done. E.g., if police find bomb making equipment etc then the person will be deported if foreign or locked up if domestic.

    And deportation itlself may not be that useful. you then have no control over what that person does in their home country, maybe they go recruiting more terrorists. Lock them up in a UK jail and they can be safely guarded and separated form other extremists.
     
  14. ben1977

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 28, 2010

    Posts: 358

    A good question but please elaborate on what happened in the 1970s.
     
  15. muon

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 8, 2006

    Posts: 18,130

    Location: London

  16. jimjamuk

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 30, 2007

    Posts: 2,819

    Location: Bristol, UK

    I just think that those in the top 150 say all get "interviewed" with what they been up to lately. Should that mean popping round for tea and biscuits at 5am to make sure they are in well I suppose thats efficient. Just ask a few questions and the old "got my eye on you" hand gesture. Just to make sure they know they are being watched. Should anyone have any party poppers or sight seeing tours planned then they get invited for tea at HM's pleasure
     
  17. muon

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 8, 2006

    Posts: 18,130

    Location: London

    Would help having more police officers who spend time actually doing community policing on the ground.
     
  18. jimjamuk

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 30, 2007

    Posts: 2,819

    Location: Bristol, UK

    Agree but they wont magically appears for a few years so my view was in the short term
     
  19. Caged

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 23,242

    Where are you getting the resources to get 150 people in front of officials qualified to make a judgement on the risk they pose? I'm also not convinced it's wise to take the people at the top of your list and let them know they're being watched, in case the reaction is to speed up plans for an attack.
     
  20. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,152


    It can also limit intelligence gathering.