Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th

[ubersonic]

Just look at all the people killed by the like of ISIS and AQ who come from states which have nothing to do with western interventions.

ISIS originated in Iraq, as a direct result of the US led western intervention. AQ were originally called the Mujahideen and were armed/trained/funded by the USA in the 1980's when they were fighting the USSR, they then turned on the USA after they situated troops/bases in Saudi Arabia to defend Saudi Arabia from ex-US puppet Saddam (AQ had already offered to defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam) then kept them there after the first Iraq war (which AQ saw as an occupation).

Just Look at Syria, which is case of what happens when the world does nothing.

If the west had done nothing with regards to Syria then Assad's forces would have quickly defeated the rebels before ISIS arrived in the country then beaten them too. Instead they were forced to fight the rebels with kiddie gloves to avoid incurring the wrath of the west like Gaddafi did resulting in then having to fight a war on two fronts.

 

[McGray]

It seems odd football fans can be banned through civil (not criminal) courts just for association with "risk" supporters and have restrictions and passport seizure but known extremists can come and go with impunity.

 

[XeNoN89]

Is that possible? It would lead them stateless

Apparently it's not allowed but really we need to ignore those who say it isn't allowed for the good of the country.

 

[antijoke]

It seems odd football fans can be banned through civil (not criminal) courts just for association with "risk" supporters and have restrictions and passport seizure but known extremists can come and go with impunity.

You saw that post on Facebook too huh?

 

[dowie]

It seems odd football fans can be banned through civil (not criminal) courts just for association with "risk" supporters and have restrictions and passport seizure but known extremists can come and go with impunity.

indeed, unfortunately those in authority have perhaps been too scared to appear 'racist' etc.. to do the same for Islamists. The same mentality that allowed muslim rape gangs to operate without intervention for so long.

 

[Andy_82]

I'm not sure if this is true. There are options for us to improve both controls on individuals and information gathering without dramatic day to day changes for the vast majority of the UK population.

In both of the last 2 terrorist attacks in the UK, the perpetrators were 'already known' to the security services. So we can use these two as good examples to investigate whether there was a failure to restrict, an inability to restrict or a failure in intelligence gathering applies.

It is true that the we can never prevent all teŕorist attacks, but that doesn't follow that we are at the point now where nothing more could be done.

sorry, i'm not very good at communicating my meaning. What you've highlighted is normal procedure after any inteligence failure. theirs is always that thraise 'lessons can/will be learned' that certain conservative politicians seem to use rather a lot.

My thoughts were more torwards suggestions from the more 'right media / daily mail et al'. Suggestions that british citizens should be prevented from returning from syria etc and deporting those who are suspected, effectively making someone stateless. Locking people up or internment without evidence or jue process indefinately. after all, before any intent to commit terrorist related offenses, they haven't done anything wrong. (please don't think i have sympathy for them, I don't at all). I know the 2005 act allowed a certain ammount and i remember how contreversial that was at the time.

You can guess the kind of thing, I am just a bit shocked so many people would find it acceptable, not sure why i am really. I do fear a knee-jerk reaction though, being that we're in the middle of an election campaign.

 

[Rroff]

If the west had done nothing with regards to Syria then Assad's forces would have quickly defeated the rebels before ISIS arrived in the country then beaten them too. Instead they were forced to fight the rebels with kiddie gloves to avoid incurring the wrath of the west like Gaddafi did resulting in then having to fight a war on two fronts.

Optimistic at best - Syria was turning into a melting pot - its far less likely it would have been over and done with that clinically even without external intervention. Western intervention directly is also one of the smaller factors with Syria - they've also had plenty of meddling from other entities within the region.

 

[Greebo]

Apparently it's not allowed but really we need to ignore those who say it isn't allowed for the good of the country.

Not sure who they are in this case. I know we can remove citizenship but only if the person has means to get citizenship from another country and we have done this 37 times so far. But this basically means anybody born here we cant do that as it would leave them stateless.

Not sure which law/treaty stops us doing that. Anybody? I know its been ruled by the highest law in the country that we can't but it seems its more than "we just change the law so we can"

indeed, unfortunately those in authority have perhaps been too scared to appear 'racist' etc.. to do the same for Islamists. The same mentality that allowed muslim rape gangs to operate without intervention for so long.

We remove passports and remove citizenship of Muslims and have done for years. Please get your facts straight. Its not a case of we dont do so we don;t appear racist.

 

[Andy_82]

Not sure who they are in this case. I know we can remove citizenship but only if the person has means to get citizenship from another country and we have done this 37 times so far. But this basically means anybody born here we cant do that as it would leave them stateless.

Not sure which law/treaty stops us doing that. Anybody? I know its been ruled by the highest law in the country that we can't but it seems its more than "we just change the law so we can"

I think it's the UNHCR but i'm not certain

 

[dowie]

We remove passports and remove citizenship of Muslims and have done for years. Please get your facts straight. Its not a case of we dont do so we don;t appear racist.

perhaps you should get your facts straight - I was making a statement in direct reference to the civil actions undertaken re: football fans - we don't do that at the moment re: extremists and require rather a lot more to remove a passport

 

[Dolph]

Not sure who they are in this case. I know we can remove citizenship but only if the person has means to get citizenship from another country and we have done this 37 times so far. But this basically means anybody born here we cant do that as it would leave them stateless.

Not sure which law/treaty stops us doing that. Anybody? I know its been ruled by the highest law in the country that we can't but it seems its more than "we just change the law so we can"

It relates to our obligations under the various U.N. charters and agreements.

 

[Greebo]

I think it's the UNHCR but i'm not certain

Found the answer its the 1954 Convention on Stateless Treaty which we signed up to as part of the UN.

I presume in order to bring in a new UK law to overrule that we would have to leave the UN?

perhaps you should get your facts straight - I was making a statement in direct reference to the civil actions undertaken re: football fans - we don't do that at the moment re: extremists and require rather a lot more to remove a passport

It may require more but the point you quoted and were reinforcing was that they can currently come and go as they please which clearly isnt the case with 100s getting their passports seized and 37 getting their citizenship revoked. Yes, it may take more paperwork but you cant just ignore the fact that it doesn't happen.

 

[dowie]

It may require more but the point you quoted and were reinforcing was that they can currently come and go as they please which clearly isnt the case with 100s getting their passports seized and 37 getting their citizenship revoked. Yes, it may take more paperwork but you cant just ignore the fact that it doesn't happen.

I'm not ignoring that, you've simply brought up a point that wasn't being made - the point related to the contrast in how easy it is to stop football fans. That we confiscate passports from some doesn't detract from that.

The perpetrator in this case was known to authorities, had been reported by people and was able to travel to Libya.

 

[Greebo]

I'm not ignoring that, you simply brought up a point that wasn't being made - the point related to the contrast in how easy it is to stop football fans.

The perpetrator in this case was known to authorities, had been reported by people and was able to travel to Libya.

Because after been looked into by security forces he was deemed to be a low risk and hence didn't go on a watch list...............................if he had been a high risk he would not be allowed to travel to Libya.

On the same basis with football fans, you went them getting a travel ban purely on the basis of somebody ringing in and saying they are a hooligan? Clearly that doesn't happen.

 

[dowie]

Because after been looked into by security forces he was deemed to be a low risk and hence didn't go on a watch list...............................if he had been a high risk he would not be allowed to travel to Libya.

On the same basis with football fans, you went them getting a travel ban purely on the basis of somebody ringing in and saying they are a hooligan? Clearly that doesn't happen.

still missing the point which is that we have a much lower threshold for banning a suspected football hooligan than we would a suspected Islamist

 

[Tunney]

The same mentality that allowed muslim rape gangs to operate without intervention for so long.

Are you suggesting that this country has a good track record on stopping rapes by non-Muslims?

 

[dowie]

Are you suggesting that this country has a good track record on stopping rapes by non-Muslims?

^^^ Why do people engage in this sort of posting? You point something out and then you get a spurious 'implication' question directed at your post which has nothing to do with anything you've implied.

"Are you suggesting that [insert something not implied or dealt with by the post in question]"

This is the second time I've seen it happen today. No I'm not claiming that we're great in general at dealing with rapes, that doesn't detract from the fact we were especially bad at dealing with muslim rape gangs and part of that was reluctance on the part of the authorities as they didn't want to appear racist etc.. that is well documented.

 

[Tunney]

^^^ Why do people engage in this sort of posting? You point something out and then you get a spurious 'implication' question directed at your post which has nothing to do with anything you've implied.

Because the thing you're "pointing out" is complete nonsense and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's taken over 40 years to bring some white Christian rapists to justice (e.g. Fred Talbot just this week). Religion and race is a minor factor, not the root cause.

 

[Gabbatek]

omg its open again. Censorship has failed

 

[StriderX]

Because the thing you're "pointing out" is complete nonsense and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's taken over 40 years to bring some white Christian rapists to justice (e.g. Fred Talbot just this week). Religion and race is a minor factor, not the root cause.

Its taken 40 years because 40 years ago it was "sorta ok" to ignore, especially when it was high ranking government/opposition officials who touched little boys for fun on the weekend, but because the Russians could use that as blackmail... it was swept under the rug by Specials.