RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
A huge sum may not be the same as enough

You were positing that 'we in practice do very little'; my perception is that we spend a fortune avoiding a lot more terrorist incidents.

Enron spent a fortune on compliance, a fortune sadly often equates to doing very little

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: You were positing that 'we in practice do very little'; my perception is that we spend a fortune avoiding a lot more terrorist incidents.

Enron spent a fortune on compliance, a fortune sadly often equates to doing very little

a- you seemed to be saying initially that we didn't spend much on surveillance (quote-My guess is in the main we in practice do very little as we just don't want to spend the money (rightly or wrongly))
b- I'd think the relative lack of organised terror offences in the UK is probably evidence that we do a decent job on surveillance and prevention, touch wood and all that. The rumoured number of foiled attacks in London alone is scary.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Enron spent a fortune on compliance, a fortune sadly often equates to doing very little

a- you seemed to be saying initially that we didn't spend much on surveillance (quote-My guess is in the main we in practice do very little as we just don't want to spend the money (rightly or wrongly))
b- I'd think the relative lack of organised terror offences in the UK is probably evidence that we do a decent job on surveillance and prevention, touch wood and all that. The rumoured number of foiled attacks in London alone is scary.

Doing very little I meant on balance. We can be spending a lot and doing a lot and still be inadequate

Edit - and this was I think relating to coverage on those returning from overseas, which is linked to but also distinct to other work by out security services

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: a- you seemed to be saying initially that we didn't spend much on surveillance (quote-My guess is in the main we in practice do very little as we just don't want to spend the money (rightly or wrongly))
b- I'd think the relative lack of organised terror offences in the UK is probably evidence that we do a decent job on surveillance and prevention, touch wood and all that. The rumoured number of foiled attacks in London alone is scary.

Doing very little I meant on balance. We can be spending a lot and doing a lot and still be inadequate

Edit - and this was I think relating to coverage on those returning from overseas, which is linked to but also distinct to other work by out security services

Perhaps it would help if you said what you meant first time- seemed clear to me that you were saying we didn't spend much, then moved to saying well even if we do spend a lot, we don't spend it well. Do you believe our security services at home are inadequate? You seemed to be saying in the main we do very little- I'd love to know how you gauge that.

Sandydragon wrote:The level of surveillance would be based on a risk assessment. If a returning jihadi did well during deradicalisation the the effort would be less. If unresponsive, more. No surveillance system is foolproof and there simply isn’t the resources to cover every threat all of the time.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Doing very little I meant on balance. We can be spending a lot and doing a lot and still be inadequate

Edit - and this was I think relating to coverage on those returning from overseas, which is linked to but also distinct to other work by out security services

Perhaps it would help if you said what you meant first time- seemed clear to me that you were saying we didn't spend much, then moved to saying well even if we do spend a lot, we don't spend it well. Do you believe our security services at home are inadequate? You seemed to be saying in the main we do very little- I'd love to know how you gauge that.

I think you can't gauge it without hindsight, though my experience is organisations underfund just about everything worth funding

Stom wrote:I'm now entering this debate because of this news:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... or-targets

My opinion is very much that terrorist groups do their recruiting and grow in stature by fuelling hate. And the only way you can reduce their impact is by the opposite of hate: compassion and empathy.

Thinking about this case in light of everything around it, the only sensible thing that appears to me is to bring her back to the UK, treat her well, talk to her constantly, understand what her pain points were, what caused her to leave, what caused her to say what she said, and to try and find a way to help her overcome those problems.

The only way you can remove terrorist organisations from the world is by treating the people they want to radicalize with respect, empathy and compassion, no matter how repulsive their views may be.

The leaders of those terrorist groups rarely care about the issues they allegedly stand for, either, they only care about themselves. But they're very good at manipulating others. So, as a government, you need to make the groups at risk of being radicalized feel at home, welcomed, part of a great unit.

Unfortunately, that goes against the political methods of the day, which are akin to fucking 10-man rugby: the simplest possible way to win, so everyone does it.

And until we have a BIG change in political power somewhere, and a revolution, we will continue down this route of hatred, radicalization, more and more terrorism, hate crime, destruction of livelihoods, and so on.

So, stop and take a look. Of course she should be bought back to the UK. She needs someone who can take care of her. It doesn't matter how disgusting her views seem to you, she needs someone to help her. And desperately. And by turning her down, the UK government is showing itself for what it is: terrorists.

Stones of granite wrote:

Stom wrote:I'm now entering this debate because of this news:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... or-targets

My opinion is very much that terrorist groups do their recruiting and grow in stature by fuelling hate. And the only way you can reduce their impact is by the opposite of hate: compassion and empathy.

Thinking about this case in light of everything around it, the only sensible thing that appears to me is to bring her back to the UK, treat her well, talk to her constantly, understand what her pain points were, what caused her to leave, what caused her to say what she said, and to try and find a way to help her overcome those problems.

The only way you can remove terrorist organisations from the world is by treating the people they want to radicalize with respect, empathy and compassion, no matter how repulsive their views may be.

The leaders of those terrorist groups rarely care about the issues they allegedly stand for, either, they only care about themselves. But they're very good at manipulating others. So, as a government, you need to make the groups at risk of being radicalized feel at home, welcomed, part of a great unit.

Unfortunately, that goes against the political methods of the day, which are akin to fucking 10-man rugby: the simplest possible way to win, so everyone does it.

And until we have a BIG change in political power somewhere, and a revolution, we will continue down this route of hatred, radicalization, more and more terrorism, hate crime, destruction of livelihoods, and so on.

So, stop and take a look. Of course she should be bought back to the UK. She needs someone who can take care of her. It doesn't matter how disgusting her views seem to you, she needs someone to help her. And desperately. And by turning her down, the UK government is showing itself for what it is: terrorists.

To me, this is something out of nothing. The "shooting range" (it isn't a shooting range, it's an airsoft facility) already offers targets with the image of Trump and Thatcher, but strangely there is no outrage over this.
I'd be more inclined to climb aboard the outrage bus if 1. it really was a shooting range, and 2. it didn't reek of right-on sensationalism.

Stom wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Stom wrote:I'm now entering this debate because of this news:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... or-targets

My opinion is very much that terrorist groups do their recruiting and grow in stature by fuelling hate. And the only way you can reduce their impact is by the opposite of hate: compassion and empathy.

Thinking about this case in light of everything around it, the only sensible thing that appears to me is to bring her back to the UK, treat her well, talk to her constantly, understand what her pain points were, what caused her to leave, what caused her to say what she said, and to try and find a way to help her overcome those problems.

The only way you can remove terrorist organisations from the world is by treating the people they want to radicalize with respect, empathy and compassion, no matter how repulsive their views may be.

The leaders of those terrorist groups rarely care about the issues they allegedly stand for, either, they only care about themselves. But they're very good at manipulating others. So, as a government, you need to make the groups at risk of being radicalized feel at home, welcomed, part of a great unit.

Unfortunately, that goes against the political methods of the day, which are akin to fucking 10-man rugby: the simplest possible way to win, so everyone does it.

And until we have a BIG change in political power somewhere, and a revolution, we will continue down this route of hatred, radicalization, more and more terrorism, hate crime, destruction of livelihoods, and so on.

So, stop and take a look. Of course she should be bought back to the UK. She needs someone who can take care of her. It doesn't matter how disgusting her views seem to you, she needs someone to help her. And desperately. And by turning her down, the UK government is showing itself for what it is: terrorists.

To me, this is something out of nothing. The "shooting range" (it isn't a shooting range, it's an airsoft facility) already offers targets with the image of Trump and Thatcher, but strangely there is no outrage over this.
I'd be more inclined to climb aboard the outrage bus if 1. it really was a shooting range, and 2. it didn't reek of right-on sensationalism.

My opinion held before this incident, and I find it equally repulsive that it contains the image of any real person.

Stom wrote: Thinking about this case in light of everything around it, the only sensible thing that appears to me is to bring her back to the UK, treat her well, talk to her constantly, understand what her pain points were, what caused her to leave, what caused her to say what she said, and to try and find a way to help her overcome those problems.

Stones of granite wrote:

Stom wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: To me, this is something out of nothing. The "shooting range" (it isn't a shooting range, it's an airsoft facility) already offers targets with the image of Trump and Thatcher, but strangely there is no outrage over this.
I'd be more inclined to climb aboard the outrage bus if 1. it really was a shooting range, and 2. it didn't reek of right-on sensationalism.

My opinion held before this incident, and I find it equally repulsive that it contains the image of any real person.

I broadly agree with your position on this, but one thing that does intrigue me.

Stom wrote: Thinking about this case in light of everything around it, the only sensible thing that appears to me is to bring her back to the UK, treat her well, talk to her constantly, understand what her pain points were, what caused her to leave, what caused her to say what she said, and to try and find a way to help her overcome those problems.

What happens if she says "fuck off" and refuses to discuss anything? As far as I am aware, unless the authorities have some reasonable grounds to detain her, they are totally reliant on her being cooperative to do what you suggest. I don't consider it beyond the realms of possibility that she will simply disappear back into the fold of her family and community, refuse all contact with the authorities, and possibly continue to spread her bile.

Stom wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Stom wrote:
My opinion held before this incident, and I find it equally repulsive that it contains the image of any real person.

I broadly agree with your position on this, but one thing that does intrigue me.

Stom wrote: Thinking about this case in light of everything around it, the only sensible thing that appears to me is to bring her back to the UK, treat her well, talk to her constantly, understand what her pain points were, what caused her to leave, what caused her to say what she said, and to try and find a way to help her overcome those problems.

What happens if she says "fuck off" and refuses to discuss anything? As far as I am aware, unless the authorities have some reasonable grounds to detain her, they are totally reliant on her being cooperative to do what you suggest. I don't consider it beyond the realms of possibility that she will simply disappear back into the fold of her family and community, refuse all contact with the authorities, and possibly continue to spread her bile.

Well, that's what the intelligence services are for. She would need to be watched, and if she spread hate, she could well be arrested. But the point still stands: people need to be treated with more understanding, compassion and empathy.

Except Piers Morgan.

Stones of granite wrote: Oh, come on now. Arrested for what? Conversations with other mothers at the Madrassa creche? At mother-child coffee mornings? Our intelligence services may be good, but they're not that good.

Banquo wrote:

Zhivago wrote:We are fast becoming an insular, hateful country, and it's saddening to see our decline. I'm almost ashamed to be British these days.

Tend to agree tbh, though imo Brexit has merely exposed something barely beneath the surface.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I have deep suspicion that the Home Secretary is pushing the envelope of the law. I suspect what he's done is say that she could claim citizenship of another country therefore she isn't stateless. I have my doubts that that is the law. It appears to me that Javid is taking this approach purely due to the publicity and that's never a good start. I caveat that by saying that I have no idea what the intelligence is on her and i have no doubt that there will be plenty.

SB seems pretty fucking repellent. However as someone has said it's difficult not to be when you're surrounded by people with those views. I have my doubts whether shehas changed her mind, but that's not really the point. Human rights are there to protect fuckwits as much as nice people. If they aren't then you give someone the power to decide that others are less than human and not worthy of protection. You don't have to go far back to see the consequences of that.

One other thing. I deal with sexual offences nowadays. If I 15 year old is persuaded to do something against her and others interests by other more sophisticated people who then keep them in a desperate situation, we call that grooming. We do not think that the moment they hit 18 that it's the end of the influence that there has been on them. We aren't surprised if they continue to stay with their abusers and espouse those abusers views for some time even if they are removed from their immediate influence. On the assumption that she hasn't actually been killing people, I'd suggest that such an approach isn't a wrong one even in these circumstances.

Stones of granite wrote: Oh, come on now. Arrested for what? Conversations with other mothers at the Madrassa creche? At mother-child coffee mornings? Our intelligence services may be good, but they're not that good.

I think they roughly are. They infiltrated the Finsbury Park and Brixton mosques and got recordings of hate speech. If all she's doing is saying "aren't the brits shit" to other people in the madrassa then I'd struggle tosee why anyone thinks that would be worth excluding her from the country.

Banquo wrote:

Zhivago wrote:We are fast becoming an insular, hateful country, and it's saddening to see our decline. I'm almost ashamed to be British these days.

Tend to agree tbh, though imo Brexit has merely exposed something barely beneath the surface.

I agree. There's a friend of mine who has thrown herself into anti-Brexit campaigning who thinks that Brexit has caused all the country's ills. I haven't quite had the heart to set her straight that it is no news to me that half the country are assholes.