Manchester Bombing *** Please remain respectful and refrain from antagonising posts ***

Would be a bit awkward trying to explain if they raided right now with this spread out on my work bench :s

PEDhffl.jpg
 
gizmoy2k said:
Poor Amber wants to decrypt WhatsApp but seems she can't even control crime scene photos ......these people are running our county
Click to expand...

For all her faults you can't really put this one on her. She asked the US authorities not to leak any info. Yet they did. Not sure what she's meant to t do about that??
 
News on those detonator fragments seem to be pointing towards a high velocity military grade charge rather than home brew explosive - bit concerning if they managed to smuggle that in but probably means they have limited supply atleast.
 
It almost feels as though there's some sort of paralysis in terms of how to act.

Anybody who suggests any sort of action against people on terrorism watch lists, seems to be deemed a nazi. But as I imagine the authorities scooping up bits of children and placing them into evidence bags, combined with a dose of cold hearted reality - I can't help but think something drastic needs to happen, and it needs to happen now.

The alternative is to stand strong, united in the face of terrorism - It feels nice - but it doesn't do anything in reality. It seems to me that this has been the standard procedure over the years, from Bataclan to Charlie Hebdo to Westminster - but it hasn't helped, and now we're told that more carnage is 'imminent'

Engaging with the Islamic community doesn't seem to work, government strategies such as 'prevent' seem to cause more alienation and distrust, governments are also terrible at changing people's behaviour - so it seems only natural that trying to engage with the Islamic community is likely to fail, from both sides, perhaps due to a combination of government incompetence meeting a hard-nosed culture that doesn't want to be told how to act, let alone expect it's community members to grass each other up to 'the man'

Making suggestions to take what would be 'preemptive action' against people on watch lists, does seem authoritarian, it does seem harsh and risks creating more division and causing more problems, but I'm struggling to see meaningful alternatives, other than more of the same.
 
Remember these people on the watch list are generally made up of people that gone to Syria and fought for IS. Not exactly innocent people after all.
 
^ How long did it take to get rid of Hamza.

People will still have his thought process and beliefs they're just not stupid enough to preach it in the street with a loud speaker.


I've always been confused by this 'try and get people back from Syria' etc. Unless they've genuinely gone to visit family or assist in aid activities then revoke passports and don't let them back in.
 
deuse said:
I don't really know. But they would have to change the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 a bit as well. But doable
Click to expand...
By the way, I'll just quickly explain why they have such a thing as indefinite detention without trial, which will hopefully explain why it's stupid to want to expand it to UK citizens. The origins lie in immigration rules, whereby we can deport immigrants who we think are a terrorism risk in cases where we don't have enough evidence to prosecute them. So far, so good, we get to deport people we don't like the look of. You might say that this power should be used more, and I wouldn't say that was unreasonable, but we're still a way off the point. The problem arises where we want to deport people but we know they'd be tortured in whatever country we would be sending them back to, which is generally frowned upon. Indefinite detention without trial is a kludge to bridge the gap on these two situations. We don't have the evidence to prosecute them, but we can't deport them, so we lock them up indefinitely.

Are you seeing the problem yet?

You want to expand this provision to British citizens. This provision is there for people we can't prosecute - so far, so good - but who we can't deport because we think they'll be tortured wherever we deport them to.

So where are you suggesting that we would hypothetically be deporting them to where they'd be tortured, such that we'd need to not deport them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom