House of Commons shooting?

[anonymous-user]

rscott said:

No, they quite often investigate based on information supplied by members of the community.

So a little bit of photoshop could create images of posts by you supporting terrorism which we claim you posted here then deleted.
Submit those images to the police and boom - you're locked up, 'just in case'

[p1stonhead]

Alpinestars said:

bmw535i said:

p1stonhead said:

Anyone can be investigated for terrorism that is the point everyone has been trying to make to you.

Yes they can if they're involved in it. I don't think the security services just suddenly investigate anyone on a whim.

You don't have to be involved in something to be investigated.

Im out. Ive decided he is either, (not sure what the PC term is) a mental case, or he is trolling.

Either way, he isnt capable of making reasonable points nor recognising when others make them.

[hairykrishna]

Digga said:

p1stonhead said:

To be clear, personally I am not bothered in the slightest nor scared/terrified by it and agree with you, its a non issue in my head in terms of potential risk.

But if this is now the weapon of choice, the risk is a lot higher in my mind than being blown up. Still not bothered, but the risk has surely gone up.

Maybe, but I for one am not prepared to consider it, even once. To live in fear is worse than dying.

It's pretty low down my list of things to worry about. Four or five people a day die in road accidents without the aid of terrorists.

[rscott]

bmw535i said:

rscott said:

No, they quite often investigate based on information supplied by members of the community.

So a little bit of photoshop could create images of posts by you supporting terrorism which we claim you posted here then deleted.
Submit those images to the police and boom - you're locked up, 'just in case'

You're the one who said people investigated for terrorism should be locked up indefinitely.

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

Yes, but the point that everyone is making is that all I need to say is "You are involved in terrorism" and you'll be locked up and investigated. Is that not bad??

No

p1stonhead said:

No those INVESTIGATED for terrorism even if they are innocent.

I think I recall saying to be investigated you'd normally be involved - unless of course people photoshop PH posts to get you investigated

[rscott]

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

Yes, but the point that everyone is making is that all I need to say is "You are involved in terrorism" and you'll be locked up and investigated. Is that not bad??

No

p1stonhead said:

No those INVESTIGATED for terrorism even if they are innocent.

I think I recall saying to be investigated you'd normally be involved - unless of course people photoshop PH posts to get you investigated

No - to be investigated, there simply needs to a be a claim that you MAY be involved.

[anonymous-user]

rscott said:

No - to be investigated, there simply needs to a be a claim that you MAY be involved.

I see. Your photoshop scenario must be one of these "good points" I'm hearing being mentioned

[mcdjl]

bmw535i said:

Disastrous said:

Yes, but the point that everyone is making is that all I need to say is "You are involved in terrorism" and you'll be locked up and investigated. Is that not bad??

No

p1stonhead said:

No those INVESTIGATED for terrorism even if they are innocent.

I think I recall saying to be investigated you'd normally be involved - unless of course people photoshop PH posts to get you investigated

I want you to be investigated for potential involvement with terrorism because: you have a car (means) dislike of police (motive) better than average awareness of the threat (done research). You're now on the same level as Masood/Elms or higher on the threat list was on Tuesday. Lets jail you while we investigate you.

[p1stonhead]

bmw535i said:

rscott said:

No - to be investigated, there simply needs to a be a claim that you MAY be involved.

I see. Your photoshop scenario must be one of these "good points" I'm hearing being mentioned

You dont think you would be investigated if coincidentially you often frequented the same shop, lived next door to, exchanged pleasentries with an actual terrorist?

[Alpinestars]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Giving BMWs a bad name.

[Digga]

Alpinestars said:

bmw535i said:

Alpinestars said:

You mean locking up someone who is guilty? I thought you were advocating internment or "potential" terrorists, or have I got that wrong?

Those involved in terrorism.

That's not what you said earlier.

It's an interesting and difficult debate.

You can be tried as an accessory to murder, even if you played no physical part in the actual offence. At what point in involvement extremism?

[Dindoit]

How do we know who to investigate and therefore lock up without trial? Anyone got a Dulux chart handy?

[p1stonhead]

Dindoit said:

How do we know who to investigate and therefore lock up without trial? Anyone got a Dulux chart handy?

Just get them to stand next to the nearest tree for comparison.

No silver birch's.

[anonymous-user]

mcdjl said:

I want you to be investigated for potential involvement with terrorism because: you have a car (means) dislike of police (motive) better than average awareness of the threat (done research). You're now on the same level as Masood/Elms or higher on the threat list was on Tuesday. Lets jail you while we investigate you.

I doubt your complaint would be investigated

p1stonhead said:

You dont think you would be investigated if coincidentially you often frequented the same shop, lived next door to, exchanged pleasentries with an actual terrorist?

No

[anonymous-user]

bmw535i said:

mcdjl said:

Have you not noticed how i made it look like you could be? Have you managed to work out how to prove you're not a threat? Still think you have nothing to fear?

Yes and no. On a personal level, no. On a wider level yes, you get the same number of votes as me (possibly more if you live in somewhere with an elected mayor). If you want to vote for someone who thinks that locking up everyone who could be a terrorist is a good plan, they might get into power. If that happens then we really are in trouble.

I'm not involved in terrorism. I have nothing to fear

Crossflow Kid said:

What if someone else had their doubts about you? Lock you up, just to be sure?

See my answer above

So if someone suspected of terrorist activity/motives/involvement simply says "I'm not involved in terrorism", that means they're in the clear?
Epic.
Anyway,I think you may be more of a terrorist than you think....
Got any knives at home?
Access to a vehicle?
D'you frequently drive the same route, say to work, or the shops?
Sounds to me like you could be doing a recce or practise run.
Best we lock you up.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 24th March 13:18

[Alpinestars]

Digga said:

Alpinestars said:

bmw535i said:

Alpinestars said:

You mean locking up someone who is guilty? I thought you were advocating internment or "potential" terrorists, or have I got that wrong?

Those involved in terrorism.

That's not what you said earlier.

It's an interesting and difficult debate.

You can be tried as an accessory to murder, even if you played no physical part in the actual offence. At what point in involvement extremism?

Of course it's difficult, which makes BMW's binary argument even more ridiculous.

[p1stonhead]

bmw535i said:

mcdjl said:

I want you to be investigated for potential involvement with terrorism because: you have a car (means) dislike of police (motive) better than average awareness of the threat (done research). You're now on the same level as Masood/Elms or higher on the threat list was on Tuesday. Lets jail you while we investigate you.

I doubt your complaint would be investigated

p1stonhead said:

You dont think you would be investigated if coincidentially you often frequented the same shop, lived next door to, exchanged pleasentries with an actual terrorist?

No

Well you would. So you would be in prison.

[Dindoit]

p1stonhead said:

Dindoit said:

How do we know who to investigate and therefore lock up without trial? Anyone got a Dulux chart handy?

Just get them to stand next to the nearest tree for comparison.

No silver birch's.

The alarming rise of sycamore in this country is something Tommy Robinson warned us about. How have we been so blind?

[mcdjl]

bmw535i said:

mcdjl said:

I want you to be investigated for potential involvement with terrorism because: you have a car (means) dislike of police (motive) better than average awareness of the threat (done research). You're now on the same level as Masood/Elms or higher on the threat list was on Tuesday. Lets jail you while we investigate you.

I doubt your complaint would be investigated

p1stonhead said:

You dont think you would be investigated if coincidentially you often frequented the same shop, lived next door to, exchanged pleasentries with an actual terrorist?

No

Why not? If we're not investigating you, then we're not investigating anyone on that basis. So now we're not investigating anyone reported by other citizens. Or the friends and family of terrorists. So what we're going to do is jail everyone we investigate for terrorism. But this will be ok because, wait for it, we won't investigate anyone . Genius.

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

bmw535i said:

mcdjl said:

I want you to be investigated for potential involvement with terrorism because: you have a car (means) dislike of police (motive) better than average awareness of the threat (done research). You're now on the same level as Masood/Elms or higher on the threat list was on Tuesday. Lets jail you while we investigate you.

I doubt your complaint would be investigated

p1stonhead said:

You dont think you would be investigated if coincidentially you often frequented the same shop, lived next door to, exchanged pleasentries with an actual terrorist?

No

Well you would. So you would be in prison.

No it's ok really. He said earlier he's not involved in terrorism. So that's that. Saves all that tedious investigation work too.