Do I Message Him Or Let Him Message Me?
Family & Relationships1 min ago
Warning As Hundreds Of Jailed Terrorists Back On Uk Streets
//Around three-quarters of the 583 people imprisoned on terror charges in the years since the 9/11 attacks have now served their sentences and been released from UK prisons, many still holding the same extremist beliefs that got them jailed in the first place. Sky News has been told that around two-thirds of those released refused to engage with prison deradicalisation programmes aimed at addressing their extremist behaviour.//
http://
Since these people still pose a serious danger to society, should special measures be implemented in order that their prison sentences may be extended indefinitely?
http://
Since these people still pose a serious danger to society, should special measures be implemented in order that their prison sentences may be extended indefinitely?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy-hughes, //What is important to me is precisely the security of society as a whole, and that includes not making it victim to some shadowy unaccountable police state where people disappear in the middle of the night on the basis of their supposed thoughts against society based on their ethnicity and past behaviour.//
You’re allowing your imagination to run away with you. We do not live in a ‘shadowy unaccountable police state’ and the people we are talking about are not being judged upon their ethnicity or their past behaviour, but on their current behaviour. These are people who have proven themselves not to be just criminals, but enemies of this country and in their refusal to co-operate and accept deradicalisation programmes, they remain enemies of this country. That is why our security services are obliged to continue to continue monitor them. These are NOT innocent victims. They are dangerous men.
Same to you Gromit.
Ludwig, exactly.
You’re allowing your imagination to run away with you. We do not live in a ‘shadowy unaccountable police state’ and the people we are talking about are not being judged upon their ethnicity or their past behaviour, but on their current behaviour. These are people who have proven themselves not to be just criminals, but enemies of this country and in their refusal to co-operate and accept deradicalisation programmes, they remain enemies of this country. That is why our security services are obliged to continue to continue monitor them. These are NOT innocent victims. They are dangerous men.
Same to you Gromit.
Ludwig, exactly.
// your answer does not address my question - care to have another go? //
Of course it does; In a non-democratic country those perpertrating crimes against the state are summarily executed and pronto.
Even for the lesser crimes we are also feeble when it comes to punishment;
"According to Freddi Lohse of the German Police Union in Hamburg, many migrant offenders view the leniency of the German justice system as a green light to continue delinquent behavior. "They are used to tougher consequences in their home countries," he said. "They have no respect for us."
Of course it does; In a non-democratic country those perpertrating crimes against the state are summarily executed and pronto.
Even for the lesser crimes we are also feeble when it comes to punishment;
"According to Freddi Lohse of the German Police Union in Hamburg, many migrant offenders view the leniency of the German justice system as a green light to continue delinquent behavior. "They are used to tougher consequences in their home countries," he said. "They have no respect for us."
Naomi - //You’re allowing your imagination to run away with you. We do not live in a ‘shadowy unaccountable police state’ and the people we are talking about are not being judged upon their ethnicity or their past behaviour, but on their current behaviour. //
I did not say that we live in a police state - I said the way to avoid slipping into one was to step off the slippery slope of assumption.
//These are people who have proven themselves not to be just criminals, but enemies of this country and in their refusal to co-operate and accept deradicalisation programmes, they remain enemies of this country. //
That is a matter of perception, and deciding that someone is a criminal because they don't choose to avail themselves of a facility is not a valid position.
That is why our security services are obliged to continue to continue monitor them. These are NOT innocent victims. They are dangerous men. //
I have not said that they are innocent victims - merely that if your programme was put in place, they would become innocent victims - because a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court, and refusing a de-radicalisation programme is not a crime, and the crimes they have committed, they have been punished for.
I did not say that we live in a police state - I said the way to avoid slipping into one was to step off the slippery slope of assumption.
//These are people who have proven themselves not to be just criminals, but enemies of this country and in their refusal to co-operate and accept deradicalisation programmes, they remain enemies of this country. //
That is a matter of perception, and deciding that someone is a criminal because they don't choose to avail themselves of a facility is not a valid position.
That is why our security services are obliged to continue to continue monitor them. These are NOT innocent victims. They are dangerous men. //
I have not said that they are innocent victims - merely that if your programme was put in place, they would become innocent victims - because a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court, and refusing a de-radicalisation programme is not a crime, and the crimes they have committed, they have been punished for.
If these people were 'clever' they would just pretend to wholeheartedly enter into the deradicalisation program so as to allay suspicion. Then once out of jail just continue with their 'terrorist' activity. At least if they have refused to take part in the de-radicalisation they can be monitored once out of jail, which they probably would not be if we thought they were 'cured'.
Since when was a 'de-radicalisation programme' the passport to a life unimpeded by being monitored by the government?
If I was a Jihadist worth the name, and was willing to kill and maim people in support of my beliefs, it would take a damn site more than getting some nominally Christian civil servant to design a 'programme' that is going to divert me from my seventy virgins, thanks very much!
If I was a Jihadist worth the name, and was willing to kill and maim people in support of my beliefs, it would take a damn site more than getting some nominally Christian civil servant to design a 'programme' that is going to divert me from my seventy virgins, thanks very much!
andy-hughes, //That is a matter of perception//
No, it is not a matter of perception. Sentence spent, if they were considered to be law-abiding, trustworthy citizens, the security agencies would not be monitoring them. That said, this question isn’t about what happens now, but about the possibility of special measures being implemented to address the problem more effectively.
//If I was a Jihadist worth the name, and was willing to kill and maim people in support of my beliefs, it would take a damn site more than getting some nominally Christian civil servant to design a 'programme' that is going to divert me from my seventy virgins, thanks very much!//
And there you have it!! The very reason special measures should be implemented. Well said!!
No, it is not a matter of perception. Sentence spent, if they were considered to be law-abiding, trustworthy citizens, the security agencies would not be monitoring them. That said, this question isn’t about what happens now, but about the possibility of special measures being implemented to address the problem more effectively.
//If I was a Jihadist worth the name, and was willing to kill and maim people in support of my beliefs, it would take a damn site more than getting some nominally Christian civil servant to design a 'programme' that is going to divert me from my seventy virgins, thanks very much!//
And there you have it!! The very reason special measures should be implemented. Well said!!
Hang on - your previous point was the refusal to enter a de-radiocalisation programme was a reason for monitoring them - now you are conceding that such programmes are a complete waste of time anyway!
You might as well ask them to go outside, turn around three times, and knock before re-entering, it's about as likely to 'de-radicalise them'.
And, since you are so fervent about 'monitoring' - what sort of 'monitoring' do you suggest? Because nothing less than 24/7/365 surveillance of each and every 'terrorist' is going to be sure to work.
You might as well ask them to go outside, turn around three times, and knock before re-entering, it's about as likely to 'de-radicalise them'.
And, since you are so fervent about 'monitoring' - what sort of 'monitoring' do you suggest? Because nothing less than 24/7/365 surveillance of each and every 'terrorist' is going to be sure to work.
I'm surprised you have such contempt and cynicism about society's attempts to de-radicalise terrorists andy. You're usually the one that's espousing education as way forward in these things rather than punishment.
Surely if just one of these fools can glean something from such programmes, and innocent lives are saved as a result, it's worth the effort.
(apologies and thankyou to the mod that keeps deleting my spurious duplicates by the way)
Surely if just one of these fools can glean something from such programmes, and innocent lives are saved as a result, it's worth the effort.
(apologies and thankyou to the mod that keeps deleting my spurious duplicates by the way)
Ludwig - I have never suggested that education would or indeed should cause an Islamist to turn away from his or her conviction that they are right in their murderous intents and actions.
Do you really seriously think that any Jihadist worth the name is going to sit and be preached at by some British Muslim (at best) or non-Muslim prison official (at worst) and then watch the scales fall from their eyes?
Really?
Let's be realistic about what is going on here, and not waste time money and resources in areas that are going to bear no fruit whatsoever, unless you call amusement and contempt viable results.
Do you really seriously think that any Jihadist worth the name is going to sit and be preached at by some British Muslim (at best) or non-Muslim prison official (at worst) and then watch the scales fall from their eyes?
Really?
Let's be realistic about what is going on here, and not waste time money and resources in areas that are going to bear no fruit whatsoever, unless you call amusement and contempt viable results.
andy, you seem to be suggesting that all terrorists\extremists are beyond hope and therefore always going to have murderous intent irrespective of any punishment or education that is ever thrown at them.
That being the case, I'm surprised you're not arguing in favour of keeping them locked up indefinitely.
I'm not as cynical as you. Alot of these t4wts are young and have been indoctrinated and can change. I'm pretty sure some of those that have changed are out there now trying to persuade others not to go down the same route as they did.
That being the case, I'm surprised you're not arguing in favour of keeping them locked up indefinitely.
I'm not as cynical as you. Alot of these t4wts are young and have been indoctrinated and can change. I'm pretty sure some of those that have changed are out there now trying to persuade others not to go down the same route as they did.
-- answer removed --
Ludwig - No, that is not what I am suggesting.
My point is aimed at Naomi's assertion that because some convicted terrorists have refused de-radicalisation programmes, they remain a threat.
I think that is a flawed argument.
People can say they are 'de-radicalised' and not be anything of the kind - or they can have a complete turnaround of faith, and simply fail to mention it on the way out.
The notion that the refusal is some sort of accurate barometer of a need to be monitored is farcical in my view.
That is leaving aside the notion that genuinely effective monitoring is completely impossible, both financially and practically.
And that sidetracks from the main thrust of Naomi's point about the notion of following people around on the basis of what someone thinks they may or may not do.
That does not meet my remit for a free and fair society.
My point is aimed at Naomi's assertion that because some convicted terrorists have refused de-radicalisation programmes, they remain a threat.
I think that is a flawed argument.
People can say they are 'de-radicalised' and not be anything of the kind - or they can have a complete turnaround of faith, and simply fail to mention it on the way out.
The notion that the refusal is some sort of accurate barometer of a need to be monitored is farcical in my view.
That is leaving aside the notion that genuinely effective monitoring is completely impossible, both financially and practically.
And that sidetracks from the main thrust of Naomi's point about the notion of following people around on the basis of what someone thinks they may or may not do.
That does not meet my remit for a free and fair society.
andy-hughes, //if the local cat burglar is likely to re-offend, where is his 'monitoring'?//
That’s actually a gross insult to the people who have died - and are still dying - at the hands of Islamic maniacs. Sickening!
//Let's be realistic about what is going on here//
That must be some kind of joke. The only time you’ve been realistic on this thread is in your post at 12:31 - and then you mistakenly thought you were being smart.
That’s actually a gross insult to the people who have died - and are still dying - at the hands of Islamic maniacs. Sickening!
//Let's be realistic about what is going on here//
That must be some kind of joke. The only time you’ve been realistic on this thread is in your post at 12:31 - and then you mistakenly thought you were being smart.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.