Incident at London Bridge

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

There's a certain impossibility to all of this. We don't have the thought police in this country. Unless they've actually committed a crime there's absolutely nothing the police can do.  

 

 

Well maybe now, after this happened,  being suspected of being radicalised is tantamount to being suspected of being a terrorist 

[act smiley]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

None of that is true.

Unemployment was inaccurate, yeah, I was looking at old stats without realising - though it did cause a second spike in unemployment that lasted about 4 years.
The GDP this year has finally went slightly past the one for Q2 2010 but is still slightly lower than Q3 2010 just after they took over. I added the ONS stats link.

(defecit graph is : https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf )

[yorkie1999]

6 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Quite honestly I haven't the foggiest. I'd say somehow or other we really need to get into the nooks and crannies of society and not just let this sort of thing slide.

 

While terrorism will never win, they've got the country arguing and made the mood very bitter which is probably the most wide-reaching consequence that their actions can have. It can completely change the face of our society. We all need to stand up to this in one way or another, get the non-extreme Muslims on our side and grit our teeth over the next few months/years.

I thought they were supposed to be on our side, I take it you mean opposed to terrorism.

[The Doctor]

Just now, act smiley said:

Unemployment was inaccurate, yeah, I was looking at old stats without realising - though it did cause a second spike in unemployment that lasted about 4 years.
The GDP this year has finally went slightly past the one for Q2 2010 but is still slightly lower than Q3 2010 just after they took over. I added the ONS stats link.

(defecit graph is : https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf )

That graph is debt, not deficit.

[Lionator]

Just now, yorkie1999 said:

I thought they were supposed to be on our side, I take it you mean opposed to terrorism.

Yeah sorry, should have made that clearer.

 

They are on our side, but they can easily listen to the Tommy Robinson types and feel villianised (not victimised).

[nnfox]

9 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Just watching the news, one of these guys was reported to the police on a number of occasions with fellow muslims believing he had been radicalised because of the stuff he was spouting and listening to. What chance have people got when the police ignore warnings.

 

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

There's a certain impossibility to all of this. We don't have the thought police in this country. Unless they've actually committed a crime there's absolutely nothing the police can do.  

 

 

This is part of the problem, who do you look at and who don't you.  There is only a finite number of resources.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Guest]

I guess the real question is how do we fight this?

The trouble is we have 'prevent' which attempts to stop the process of radicalisation but no scheme will be 100% successful. So you'd assume some radicalisation will happen. The police can then only react to atrocities as they're committed. 

I think one thing that will come out of this is that the muslim community will be asked difficult questions much more explicitly. The security services are talking about trailing 20k persons of interest. That is a huge amount and presumably there must be more out there who either haven't been spotted or who are only in the process of being radicalised. This is quite a chunk of what is a minority community within this country.  Clearly MUCH more needs to be done within that community. That said, we must fight this problem without ruining relations between different societal groups and causing even bigger problems. I have to say that (despite the lack of any detail as usual) May's point about different groups living in separate communities is right on the money here. 

 

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I have to say my stance on the correct response to this sort of shit is a hell of a lot further right than my left wing views on most other things. 

toddybad, we will always differ on the subject of politics, which is not a bad thing.  Your concern tonight is my number 2.

 

I sum up my desire for Labour not to win with this leader, into three key areas:

 

1) Economy.  This could be an essay, but I believe with a lot of evidence from history that a hard left Labour government will bankrupt us big time. This lot are way more dangerous than keynesian economics.  The garden tax is a drop of their veil...hence why it is vague and hidden deep into the manifesto. Marxists hate that land is owned privately. Have a quick read of the first sentence in the second paragraph https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/agrprogr/ch03s5.htm

 

2) Corbyn is a wet.  His moral compass doesn't fit the necessity around the security of a country which (currently) is the 5th largest economy in the world.

 

3) Labour/Corbyn are different this time and I get that is their/his appeal (as well as their form of utopia), but they are duping you all and they would actually be dangerous when the veil is really dropped.  As an opposition leader Corbyn can speak with the freedom of no responsibility or past record to defend. He can openly lie, as he has numerous times in the last couple of weeks, they can promise you the earth and not really have to make the sums add up because its all a dream, a desire with freedom, a wishlist.

 

I speak not as a tribal voter and have voted Labour before (Blair 1997), but fear massively the Corbyn/McDonald project would genuinely ruin us.

 

 

 

[act smiley]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

That graph is debt, not deficit.

oops yeah wrong tab; looking at the right stats it went back up for a while, then back down again.

It still doesn't inspire confidence, having massive structural cuts and then expecting that removing everyone's privacy means that the police will have an easier job instead of way more to sift through to get anywhere.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

toddybad, we will always differ on the subject of politics, which is not a bad thing.  Your concern tonight is my number 2.

 

I sum up my desire for Labour not to win with this leader, into three key areas:

 

1) Economy.  This could be an essay, but I believe with a lot of evidence from history that a hard left Labour government will bankrupt us big time. This lot are way more dangerous than keynesian economics.  The garden tax is a drop of their veil...hence why it is vague and hidden deep into the manifesto. Marxists hate that land is owned privately. Have a quick read of the first sentence in the second paragraph https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/agrprogr/ch03s5.htm

 

2) Corbyn is a wet.  His moral compass doesn't fit the necessity around the security of a country which (currently) is the 5th largest economy in the world.

 

3) Labour/Corbyn are different this time and I get that is their/his appeal (as well as their form of utopia), but they are duping you all and they would actually be dangerous when the veil is really dropped.  As an opposition leader Corbyn can speak with the freedom of no responsibility or past record to defend. He can openly lie, as he has numerous times in the last couple of weeks, they can promise you the earth and not really have to make the sums add up because its all a dream, a desire with freedom, a wishlist.

 

I speak not as a tribal voter and have voted Labour before (Blair 1997), but fear massively the Corbyn/McDonald project would genuinely ruin us.

 

 

 

Let's not get onto party politics here. There's another thread for that.

I've voted for 3 different parties at the last 3 elections. 

I will vote Labour - I think - but must admit that these events do show that a robust response is required. It's a difficult one - May would be stronger on this issue. There, I've said it. But the tories are also destroying society much more quickly than even these type of events can manage (in my opinion and not meaning to directly compare the two as they are clearly not the same thing).

Anyway, as I say, there's another thread for this.

[LiberalFox]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I guess the real question is how do we fight this?

The trouble is we have 'prevent' which attempts to stop the process of radicalisation but no scheme will be 100% successful. So you'd assume some radicalisation will happen. The police can then only react to atrocities as they're committed. 

I think one thing that will come out of this is that the muslim community will be asked difficult questions much more explicitly. The security services are talking about trailing 20k persons of interest. That is a huge amount and presumably there must be more out there who either haven't been spotted or who are only in the process of being radicalised. This is quite a chunk of what is a minority community within this country.  Clearly MUCH more needs to be done within that community. That said, we must fight this problem without ruining relations between different societal groups and causing even bigger problems. I have to say that (despite the lack of any detail as usual) May's point about different groups living in separate communities is right on the money here. 

 

Prevent is crap. It's outdated, needs a proper overhaul but by a cross parliamentary group with input from muslims, not by a select few Tories and Police Chiefs.

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

2) Corbyn is a wet.  His moral compass doesn't fit the necessity around the security of a country which (currently) is the 5th largest economy in the world.

How so? From what I've seen he's taken more of a pragmatic pacifist approach - not out right "physical action is never justifiable", but a refusal to pre-emptively attack. That is precisely the sort of attitude needed for security - we don't need to go around on the offensive, creating more enemies, but we do need to be strong against the ones we already have in this climate.

[Guest]

Just now, LiberalFox said:

Prevent is crap. It's outdated, needs a proper overhaul but by a cross parliamentary group with input from muslims, not by a select few Tories and Police Chiefs.

It certainly seems to be viewed that way and with deep suspicion within our minority communities. I think we need to engage with ALL muslims not just so called community leaders. I have no faith in such self-appointed persons to hep the situation whereas ordinary muslims will be able to explain what we need to do. I do think we need to look at how we can get proper integration between our communities. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

2) Corbyn is a wet.  His moral compass doesn't fit the necessity around the security of a country which (currently) is the 5th largest economy in the world.

 

 

I can sort of see where you're coming from here, but can you unpack this a little more for me? I mean, I might be a naive idealist but having a really tough (as opposed to part tough, part conciliatory) stance on national security just means that you're having to deal with threats left, right and centre til the cows come home - unless you wipe whoever the 'enemy' is out, yes?

 

Unless the idea of perpetual conflict is exciting to one, there has got to be a point (not necessarily at the present time as it's pretty clear right now the Daesh death-worshipping fascists aren't going to listen at all) where you have to talk, right?

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

How so? From what I've seen he's taken more of a pragmatic pacifist approach - not out right "physical action is never justifiable", but a refusal to pre-emptively attack. That is precisely the sort of attitude needed for security - we don't need to go around on the offensive, creating more enemies, but we do need to be strong against the ones we already have in this climate.

1

Yeah, pretty much put what I wanted to say in better words here.

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

How so? From what I've seen he's taken more of a pragmatic pacifist approach - not out right "physical action is never justifiable", but a refusal to pre-emptively attack. That is precisely the sort of attitude needed for security - we don't need to go around on the offensive, creating more enemies, but we do need to be strong against the ones we already have in this climate.

Oh please. TM has not (in her time in control as PM) been an aggressor in any way.  She has been firm with regard to world affairs, but seemingly fair so far.  No war mongering on her CV.  However, she would press the red button if needed and agrees with shoot to kill for the police to enact.  He wouldn't and doesn't which is why he is a wet and not suitable as a PM.

 

Anyway where in my point am I talking about needing to be an aggressor?  I'm on about defense of our nation from attack and your point doesn't cut it with that.

[LiberalFox]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It certainly seems to be viewed that way and with deep suspicion within our minority communities. I think we need to engage with ALL muslims not just so called community leaders. I have no faith in such self-appointed persons to hep the situation whereas ordinary muslims will be able to explain what we need to do. I do think we need to look at how we can get proper integration between our communities. 

Absolutely, a lot of these "community leaders" turn out to be quite nasty pieces of work when a little digging is done. What we need to do is get ordinary young Muslims involved in the process, obviously not just Muslims but we can't just leave it to white upper middle class bureaucrats to devise these schemes. As usual with bureaucratic solutions, there's no plan what to do once these people are reported. One of the most disturbing parts of May's speech was the bit that appeared to accuse the "public sector" of having a problem with extremism. I know she wants civil servants to have to pledge some sort of oath of allegiance to "British Values", I'm worried young Muslims will be put off being involved in our institutions because they will be viewed with suspicion. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Oh please. TM has not (in her time in control as PM) been an aggressor in any way.  She has been firm with regard to world affairs, but seemingly fair so far.  No war mongering on her CV.  However, she would press the red button if needed and agrees with shoot to kill for the police to enact.  He wouldn't and doesn't which is why he is a wet and not suitable as a PM.

 

Anyway where in my point am I talking about needing to be an aggressor?  I'm on about defense of our nation from attack and your point doesn't cut it with that.

The red button point is irrelevant and simply a soundbite. It's easy to say as it'll never, ever happen. Corbyn is probably a bit stupid to not just say he'd push it on this basis but I also admire him sticking as closely as he can to his lifelong beliefs. 

On one hand I think that it probably is about time we thought about getting the Russians onside to take out Daesh directly overseas. Leaving them alone - or at least dealing with them minimally and at arms length - clearly isn't working. But then, given how dreadfully all of our other foreign interventions have ended over the last 20 years (almost certainly making things far, far worse in the process) there's no saying this would do anything other than make us feel better for 20 minutes. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, LiberalFox said:

Absolutely, a lot of these "community leaders" turn out to be quite nasty pieces of work when a little digging is done. What we need to do is get ordinary young Muslims involved in the process, obviously not just Muslims but we can't just leave it to white upper middle class bureaucrats to devise these schemes. As usual with bureaucratic solutions, there's no plan what to do once these people are reported. One of the most disturbing parts of May's speech was the bit that appeared to accuse the "public sector" of having a problem with extremism. I know she wants civil servants to have to pledge some sort of oath of allegiance to "British Values", I'm worried young Muslims will be put off being involved in our institutions because they will be viewed with suspicion. 

Agree with the first half of your post. The second part is ridiculous.

[The Floyd]

This is genuinely awful.

 

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The red button point is irrelevant and simply a soundbite. It's easy to say as it'll never, ever happen. Corbyn is probably a bit stupid to not just say he'd push it on this basis but I also admire him sticking as closely as he can to his lifelong beliefs. 

On one hand I think that it probably is about time we thought about getting the Russians onside to take out Daesh directly overseas. Leaving them alone - or at least dealing with them minimally and at arms length - clearly isn't working. But then, given how dreadfully all of our other foreign interventions have ended over the last 20 years (almost certainly making things far, far worse in the process) there's no saying this would do anything other than make us feel better for 20 minutes. 

But toddy, the red button push is everything. It is the ultimate symbolic defence decision and though currently almost 100% no chance it is ever needed it sets out the greatest single form of defence. You have to say you will push it to give you the power it's defence gives. 

 

Why the hell do you think the world main powers are shitting themselves that North Korea gets this capability. They would then be in the same position as us and be much more likely to use if if pushed. This is no time for lifelong beliefs.....as a PM. I've said it loads today, these beliefs belong on the back benches.

[LiberalFox]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Agree with the first half of your post. The second part is ridiculous.

You mean my post or the government?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

You mean my post or the government?

Both TBF. The idea of public servants pledging allegiance is ridiculous. But then so is the idea that we should be worried if 3rd/4th generation brits felt this caused them difficulty. If that is the case then we really are in trouble!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

But toddy, the red button push is everything. It is the ultimate symbolic defence decision and though currently almost 100% no chance it is ever needed it sets out the greatest single form of defence. You have to say you will push it to give you the power it's defence gives. 

 

Why the hell do you think the world main powers are shitting themselves that North Korea gets this capability. They would then be in the same position as us and be much more likely to use if if pushed. This is no time for lifelong beliefs.....as a PM. I've said it loads today, these beliefs belong on the back benches.

People are worried about Korea because they might actually push it. But they won't as it would be suicide. But it would give them protection against invasion through deterrence. 

 

The UK is in a very different position. It's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion as they would be useless against terrorism. If you omit Russia, only France in Europe also has nuclear weapons. We have some weird fascination with the idea of having them but ultimately we're protected through NATO. As has been argued countless times on here, we're never getting into a fire fight with Russia and coming out okay so there is nobody out there who we could ever conceivably even threaten with their use, let alone actually become engaged with. It's complete fantasy, and fantasy that costs £200bil at that. 

 

[Guest]

Slightly concerned that I'm turning into MattP or Webbo!