EPThttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40178183
Terrorist Incident declared in London after Van & Knife At…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
kongoline
6318 Posts
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40178183 | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
On June 07 2017 01:20 MoonfireSpam wrote: So basically, they were on the radar. But no evidence found so they go down the list. Italy was involved but we're also unable to give enough evidence to land criminal conviction so I guess they're shit too. Doesn't change anything and you can't just jail people without evidence of a crime. Probably because it is impossible to watch everyone who is suspicious forever all the time. I think the most important thing in that telegraph article was the Muslim community refusing to do their funeral rites. I think the only point you may get where we are coming from is if we Photoshop you praying to an ISIS flag, then report you, then get you jailed indefinitely without trial. Yes, it is seriously a serious threat. Photoshopping people praying to ISIS flags happen all the time, man. Wonder how many innocents would be imprisoned. SAD! | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 07 2017 01:23 kongoline wrote: another "incident", in france this time http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40178183 I have to say I am beyond impressed with the UK and French police. Not just for the response time, but also how they manage to keep the calm. | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
On June 07 2017 01:31 SoSexy wrote: Yes, it is seriously a serious threat. Photoshopping people praying to ISIS flags happen all the time, man. Wonder how many innocents would be imprisoned. SAD! So you think showing support for ISIS should be a crime punishable by lifetime imprisonment? | ||
KwarK
United States43276 Posts
On June 07 2017 01:39 MoonfireSpam wrote: So you think showing support for ISIS should be a crime punishable by lifetime imprisonment? No, he thinks that although it isn't presently a crime they still should have been locked up. That's the problem with what SoSexy is saying. He keeps saying "something should have been done" but he refuses to give us a concrete picture of what he wants done. Whether he wants to abolish trials for terror subjects, what new criminal charges he wants introduced etc. | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
Had a thought that if all the nutters get themselves dead from these low tech attacks, there should be a point where we run out of these people and if these attacks are the trend, more armed police especially at high value targets / events doesn't seem too unreasonable. I think there has to be an acceptance that these attacks are by their nature near impossible to prevent. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On June 07 2017 02:04 MoonfireSpam wrote: That's all I'm getting from him too, he's implying indefinite jail for terror suspects which I think would require some re-writing of current law. Since I think several people have explained why short term jail makes the probem worse and that seems to have not gotten through. Had a thought that if all the nutters get themselves dead from these low tech attacks, there should be a point where we run out of these people and if these attacks are the trend, more armed police especially at high value targets / events doesn't seem too unreasonable. I think there has to be an acceptance that these attacks are by their nature near impossible to prevent. Enormously difficult to prevent and only really impactful because of the hysteria that surrounds them. https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/10/28/Factfile_deaths_large.png 17,201 accidental deaths in the U.K. in 2010. Sure, it's not really fair to directly compare causes of death like this, the damage done to society by a mass murder like this isn't identical to the damage done by a dozen people falling off ladders at different times in different places.... but still. In the last 15+ years less than 100 people have died due to a terrorist attack. That's 3 orders of magnitude... | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4967 Posts
Or is a bombing every so often the price we pay to let every person, even the people that are very likely to commit some kind of heinous act against your society, have the same right as anyone else and we just live with that fact? | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On June 07 2017 02:51 Uldridge wrote: What do you think should be done about these people that are very likely to be radicalized? Should you de facto even do something about it? Do you violate at least one form of their citizen's rights because they are on your radar? Or is a bombing every so often the price we pay to let every person, even the people that are very likely to commit some kind of heinous act against your society, have the same right as anyone else and we just live with that fact? As far as rights go, everyone has the same rights. It's a good question because it highlights the fundamental difference between, as far as I can tell, between the people I broadly agree with, and the people I don't. The people I tend to agree with recognise that equal rights for all is a fundamental plank of a functioning democracy. The people I tend to disagree boil down to a position of "we all know evil when we see it and evil doesn't get the same rights". At first glance it seems like a sensible thought, I mean, someone who wants to kill or have sex with children, everyone knows that's evil right, so why should we accord those people rights? Unfortunately one of the costs of taking this road is democracy... At least until we invent the crystal ball. However, that doesn't mean do nothing. Again, a bomb that kills 22 outside a concert for children is not the same as 22 people over a year dying because they choked on food. Again, short term we can and should look at making our police better at stopping these sorts of attacks. Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime Gathering materiel to commit a crime is a crime. However driving a car while crazy is not. | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
What we also don't know, but I hope is released is the expenditure on anti-terrorism and the number of attacks prevented due to evidence being found and people charged. I think in the cases of non-UK radicalised Muslims (burden of proof may be as light as evidence of support for ISIS) deportation could be considered. For UK radicalised Muslims, can't deport them. They should all be throughly investigated and if no evidence is found to charge them, they should still remain under survelience (phone, electronic taps, internet use, purchases, travel and contacts) reviewed at a cost effective interval or if anything is flagged again. Imans could be reached out to, and worked with to help watch these guys as well as prevent them from radicalising others. The hysteria from the low tech attacks needs to be kept to a minimum, including the stuff from shit-tier newspapers that almost incites witch hunts. Thoughts on censoring hate speech from the internet? | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On June 07 2017 03:42 MoonfireSpam wrote: Thoughts on censoring hate speech from the internet? An awful idea. I've been banned for some controversial facts time and time again. Literal facts because I oft put them in a blunt and ugly way. I think coming to a consensus as what constitutes hate speech is dangerous and censoring hate speech is beyond foolish. Blunt and truthful speech is not hate speech. However it has become hate speech. If you measure something, report those measurements, and say what you see in a blunt manner you will be reprimanded. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
These people are getting arrested on a near constant basis in the UK and France. Censoring hate speech on the internet will do nothing, and is begging to be abused. It's nothing but a distraction so the government can pretend they are doing something. Even though people don't like it, Trump has basically got the right idea with 'extreme vetting', because once you let cultures into your free society, there is very little you can do to remove them while remaining a free society. | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
On June 07 2017 04:19 bardtown wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_iOzIW9w0c These people are getting arrested on a near constant basis in the UK and France. Censoring hate speech on the internet will do nothing, and is begging to be abused. It's nothing but a distraction so the government can pretend they are doing something. Even though people don't like it, Trump has basically got the right idea with 'extreme vetting', because once you let cultures into your free society, there is very little you can do to remove them while remaining a free society. I assume by cultures you mean Muslims although else wise controlled immigration makes some sense on other fronts. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
HKTPZ
105 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 07 2017 01:10 KrOjah wrote: As someone who grew up in London, I can quite honestly say multiculturalism is a fail overall. Certainly worked from the perspective of the elite who profit and keep the status quo from poor people being divided. Multiculturalism has succeeded in their interests. Of course rich people in Kensington and Hampstead don't have to worry about the ghettoized, unfriendly, overpriced dirty shithole most of London has turned into where most ethnic groups can just barely stand to be in the presence of each other. Nor do college/uni liberal protesters who grew up in Oxfordshire or some equally moist area and don't really know they are born yet. As someone who is actually born, grew up and live in London, this is not a depiction of London I recognise. Other than overpriced. That at least is true. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43276 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 07 2017 05:41 HKTPZ wrote: Well, surely there is a middle-ground somewhere between human and citizen rights on one hand and to what extent we should be tolerating intolerance (in casu the most extreme manifestation of intolerance). Not that I can think of any fail-prof way to determine where that might be. Human nature is so annoyingly primitive ;( It is a constant negotiation and discussion, weighing safety from harm against the fragile nature of civil liberties and human rights. All nations have been doing it since their inception. From the KKK or IRA to militant communist from the 1910s, every country and generation has this debate. Some do better than others. This whole getting along with the rest of mankind thing is really fucking hard. It is only in the last 70 years of the western nations figured out how not to be gearing up for some war or another at all times. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On June 07 2017 06:11 Plansix wrote: It is only in the last 70 years of the western nations figured out how not to be gearing up for some war or another at all times. Wat? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I fucked that one up. It is only in the last 70 years the western world has avoiding being at war or preparing for the next one. Most of the history of Europe is different nations, city states or kingdoms fighting each other over resources. Or to put it another way, it took a really long time for the US to get all the states kinda get along. The EU and its expanding members is more complex problem. | ||
| ||
