House of Commons shooting?

[Digga]

Alpinestars said:

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.

Hugely complex. Freedom of speech and opinion clearly does have to have (at the edges of the envelope) limits.

I do suspect this, in part, explains the rise of those under surveillance from around 2,000 in 2013 to around 3,000 since 2015. Certain individuals have not transgressed far enough to be arrested (or are perhaps more useful to intelligence at large) but nonetheless cannot be allowed to enjoy the unfettered freedom and privacy the rest of society theoretically (as far as we know) does.

[Europa1]

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

Say you frequented a cafe which MI5 watches because it believes it is a meeting place for extremists, or you unwittingly are mates with an extremist - you might be regarded as being peripherally involved.

As for internment generally, why not look back at when it was last tried and see how that worked out.

[ferrisbueller]

J4CKO said:

I am sure certain folk almost welcome stuff like that for the "Told you So" aspect, like PHers like someone mentioning cars so they can dive in, so many seem to love a good rant about Muslims, its almost like "Oh good, a Muslim has done some bad stuff, today I can have a rant", and we know things arent all rosy, there are lots of issues but ffs, come on it needs to be a little more fine grained than "I dont like brown folk, they are bad. wish it was 1954 again"

I wouldn't want to be told I am no good because of what something someone I have never met had done, Raoul Moat, Fred West, Harold Shipman, Adolf, Katie Hopkins etc "they are all from your lot, wronguns the lot of you"

I note you've put Katie Hopkins farther to the right than Hitler.

[SKP555]

Since we know from the Telegraph that his descent into violence began with petty racism in Kent and from Theresa May tjat violence is a perversion of a great faith, the only sensible way to carry out internment to prevent future attacks is to intern white people in Kent.

[Strawman]

Benjamin Franklin said:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[Dindoit]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You've just typed "how to make a bomb" into an Internet forum. So have I. I wonder if we'll be cellmates? I snore.

[BigLion]

Strawman said:

Benjamin Franklin said:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

All very powerful, until one remembers that Benjamin Franklin kept slaves and supported slavery for much of his life until the latter years.

[Disastrous]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ridiculous - when all this started to kick off, I spent ages Googling IS and finding out more about them. It's called educating myself, rather than learning terrorism.


Would you have me hauled off to prison just in case? I'm white btw, if that helps your answer.

[Burwood]

Disastrous said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ridiculous - when all this started to kick off, I spent ages Googling IS and finding out more about them. It's called educating myself, rather than learning terrorism.


Would you have me hauled off to prison just in case? I'm white btw, if that helps your answer.

not at all but i would expect the security services to look at your internet history etc and make a determination as to whether it was curiosity or something else.

[LocoCoco]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Pretty sure that's what happens now.

[Disastrous]

Burwood said:

Disastrous said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ridiculous - when all this started to kick off, I spent ages Googling IS and finding out more about them. It's called educating myself, rather than learning terrorism.


Would you have me hauled off to prison just in case? I'm white btw, if that helps your answer.

not at all but i would expect the security services to look at your internet history etc and make a determination as to whether it was curiosity or something else.

I wonder how hey would do that...I mean, I watched a couple of propaganda videos (slickly edited for what they are, it must be said), read up on their leadership structure, followed all the links from the Brussels bombings etc. I think if I was viewing it from a distance I might think it was better to be on the safe side and bring me in, lest we miss someone, no?

[Disastrous]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I wonder how they foil so many attacks then?

[jjlynn27]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Because downloading 'innaporpriate pictures of children' is an offence. They are not locked up because they might do something in the future.

[Burwood]

Disastrous said:

Burwood said:

Disastrous said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ridiculous - when all this started to kick off, I spent ages Googling IS and finding out more about them. It's called educating myself, rather than learning terrorism.


Would you have me hauled off to prison just in case? I'm white btw, if that helps your answer.

not at all but i would expect the security services to look at your internet history etc and make a determination as to whether it was curiosity or something else.

I wonder how hey would do that...I mean, I watched a couple of propaganda videos (slickly edited for what they are, it must be said), read up on their leadership structure, followed all the links from the Brussels bombings etc. I think if I was viewing it from a distance I might think it was better to be on the safe side and bring me in, lest we miss someone, no?

I was merely responding to your comment 'I spent ages Googling IS' which I interpreted as a lot more than watching a couple of videos I'm no pupil of conspiracy theories but information gathering on certain subjects is profound.

[Europa1]

Although I have been following the thread fairly closely, I am not sure if anyone has posted on this yet: did anyone see Andrew Neil's intro to This Week last night? Another corker.

[Disastrous]

Burwood said:

Disastrous said:

Burwood said:

Disastrous said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ridiculous - when all this started to kick off, I spent ages Googling IS and finding out more about them. It's called educating myself, rather than learning terrorism.


Would you have me hauled off to prison just in case? I'm white btw, if that helps your answer.

not at all but i would expect the security services to look at your internet history etc and make a determination as to whether it was curiosity or something else.

I wonder how hey would do that...I mean, I watched a couple of propaganda videos (slickly edited for what they are, it must be said), read up on their leadership structure, followed all the links from the Brussels bombings etc. I think if I was viewing it from a distance I might think it was better to be on the safe side and bring me in, lest we miss someone, no?

I was merely responding to your comment 'I spent ages Googling IS' which I interpreted as a lot more than watching a couple of videos I'm no pupil of conspiracy theories but information gathering on certain subjects is profound.

It is and I feel that this may be descending into sophistry. The point being, arrest and detainment without trial or appeal, indefinitely on nothing more than 'suspicion of involvement' is open to and historically ALWAYS has been abused.

Ms Isaac Hunt and bmw335 seem to be welcome the idea of surrendering all our freedom to the security forces, safe in the knowledge that they won't be harmed as they're not terrorists. I think that shows an astonishing naivety of history.

[anonymous-user]

Crossflow Kid said:

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 Crossflow Kid on Friday 24th March 13:18

Im pretty sure I'm not a terrorist.

p1stonhead said:

Well you would. So you would be in prison.

I don't think saying hello to a terrorist means I'm involved in terrorism.

mcdjl said:

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.

I don't think saying hello to a terrorist means I'm involved in terrorism.

Europa1 said:

Say you frequented a cafe which MI5 watches because it believes it is a meeting place for extremists, or you unwittingly are mates with an extremist - you might be regarded as being peripherally involved.

As for internment generally, why not look back at when it was last tried and see how that worked out.

I don't think I would be regarded as being involved in terrorism in your scenario

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

It is and I feel that this may be descending into sophistry. The point being, arrest and detainment without trial or appeal, indefinitely on nothing more than 'suspicion of involvement' is open to and historically ALWAYS has been abused.

Ms Isaac Hunt and bmw335 seem to be welcome the idea of surrendering all our freedom to the security forces, safe in the knowledge that they won't be harmed as they're not terrorists. I think that shows an astonishing naivety of history.

I suppose if the security forces considered car drivers and knife owners as terrorists, as has been suggested, I might get worried. Most reasonable people would acknowledge they don't though.

Most people would have nothing to fear from additional surveillance and scrutiny.

By the way, it's Bmw535i

[anonymous-user]

bmw535i said:

Im pretty sure I'm not a terrorist.

Terrorists always say that.

bmw535i said:

I don't think saying hello to a terrorist means I'm involved in terrorism.

Terrorists always say that.

bmw535i said:

Europa1 said:

Say you frequented a cafe which MI5 watches because it believes it is a meeting place for extremists, or you unwittingly are mates with an extremist - you might be regarded as being peripherally involved.

I don't think I would be regarded as being involved in terrorism in your scenario

It wouldn't be your call though. And if there is even the slightest doubt, it would be better to haul you in that leave you out there.

[Disastrous]

bmw535i said:

By the way, it's Bmw535i

Apologies - I always get mixed up. They all look the same to me!