braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Listened to the latest Sam Harris podcast. A conversation with Sarah Haider on leaving Islam and related topics. Quite interesting and relevant.
Very little has changed in my view. The latest two attacks are not at all surprising. This is not some changing trend.
You're quite consistently not answering questions on what you actually want done. Someone returns and there is some concern regarding their activity abroad, but nothing has been proved. What do you think should happen to that person?
Some CCTV of the attackers stabbing a man then getting shot is all over social media, the Police did not fudge about
Except that we've had three attacks in as many months, compared to 2 (?) in the preceding 15 years. I'm not saying that action shouldn't have been taken sooner, however at the same it's hardly surprising that it was signalled following recent events. Past errors can only be rectified going forward.
I am telling you I think should be done to collect as much information to make it easier to identify.
If nothing is proved they should be allowed to carry on their way of course, but thats not to say that measures should not be put in place to make sure we know more about people travelling to high risk areas in order to make that judgement call more accurate.
And also I will maintain that someone going on a programme proclaiming to be a Jihadi on a programme called my Jihadi neighbour who is also spouting death to the west and is reported to be attempted radicalisation is giving you every reason to make more action, what do you want a road map?
Also not surprising that it's signaled right before an election...
No. I want you to state what you actually want done in a case like this to prevent a truck and knife style terror attack.
When it comes to terrorism I'm not sure stats are the best way of evaluating an extremely complex issue. It barely works for football FFS.
No. I want you to state what you actually want done in a case like this to prevent a truck and knife style terror attack.
A perfectly accurate way of describing someone who thinks like that IMO. Complete nutters, the lot of them.I would detain them under the mental health act.
Saying you are A Jihadi and you want death to the west is the same as someone saying "I am going to touch kids unless someone stops me", does not mean they have but they have said it and even without proof of any touching they would be sectioned under the mental health act.
That would be my loop hole, judge them to not be of a decent mental state
I would detain them under the mental health act.
Saying you are A Jihadi and you want death to the west is the same as someone saying "I am going to touch kids unless someone stops me", does not mean they have but they have said it and even without proof of any touching they would be sectioned under the mental health act.
That would be my loop hole, judge them to not be of a decent mental state
As far as I know there are pretty strict criteria and procedures to be followed in order to get someone sectioned - and to keep them sectioned. And for very good reason. To do what you are suggesting would probably require some legislative changes. and could be a dangerous slippery slope.
Plus assuming this were possible, it would male prosecution of those caught planning terrorist events more difficult as there would be a potential mental health loophole that could be invoked.
As ever there are no easy answers.
Surely the MP for that area must be to blame. The disparity between religious and not religious in the area is just too stark, etc, etc....Check this out, some idiot ran over a bunch of worshippers leaving the finsbury park mosque
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960
What a fudging macaron. Still I suppose it's inevitable that there would be some copycat attacks, although I bet few people thought the first would be on Muslims.
...and beating up a volunteer.Is this guys actions not just the same as people storming the Kensington Town Hall with their anger for the tower block fire?