The Difficult Conversation has to start.

IronGiant

8 minutes was how long it took to mobilise, get there and only then shoot them...

nabby

It depends on whether the civil liberties concerned are those that allow hate preachers to stay in the country because they own a cat (and I know that has been debunked, but you get the idea) or it's an insidious rolling out of Big Brother under the guise of being for our protection.

Toko Black

I agree, especially since your comment has scratched at the surface of a dichotomy that I believe is having a significant impact on our ability to deal with hate speech, extremism and views contrary to the laws of the land.
The dichotomy is that of our desires to eliminate prejudice and views contrary to our values while making exceptions for religious groups to apply prejudice in their employment, enrollment and education, even when being funded by tax payers.
These laws and exemptions have allowed religious schools to get tax payer funding and operate while in some cases teaching anti-secular, anti-western, anti-science views.
The problem is that those views can be toned down to a point that they fall under the threashold for hate speech but still contain the essence of those views. The fact that there is a line under which you can still teach, imply and act in a prejudice way is down to the exemptions.

This dichotomy is also part of a wider issues of being willing to turn a blind eye for convenience and profit while condeming others that don't give us something in return. Don't upset the ones that can cause us problems or earache, but have a go at the rest.

bernado

As a naturally left leaning bod politically, even I find your comments pretty depressing.
You're making a huge leap of faith connecting policies aimed at keeping undesirables out the way with an authoritarian state.

nabby

It's not so much an immediate leap but a constant erosion. A little bit here, a little bit there, and in 5 years time those little bits add up to a whole lot more than we thought would happen.

After all, how can people be interred for having political views that the Government deem dangerous? Today, ISIS (or the IRA) is the enemy in their eyes, but tomorrow, who knows? If the Government alone has the power to detain people indefinitely that they deem to be dangerous, then what is the difference between that and a fascist state?

Goooner

We all know that once they award themselves these powers, they won't let them go.

Who would have thought RIPA would allow local councils to snoop on people for instance?

robel

London attacks: body of eighth victim recovered from Thames - latest updates

Wahreo

Yes he was on LBC this Morning


"We did not have an Islamic extremism problem until our leaders brought it in through mass immigration"

Douglas Murray Says To Have Less Terrorism The UK Needs “Less Islam” - LBC

tapzilla2k

From what little I've gleaned from various sources (some reliable, some not very reliable), the response time in other parts of the country might well be in excess of 30 minutes.

Theresa May should if she wins the election, release the report into the funding of Terrorist groups (Cameron commissioned it) she's sat on for over a year first thing on Friday. If the rumours are true, that report may well prove Saudi Arabia has funded some of the terror groups and might have threatened us with yanking intelligence sharing should we stop selling arms to them. Put simply not enough scrutiny has been applied to arms sales to Saudi Arabia and it's possible implications for our fight against Terrorism.

Pacifico

I can see how selling Saudi a few aircraft could lead to terrorism in the UK from ISIS supporters, after all we are allied with the Saudis in the fight against ISIS. But it strikes me that pandering to such threats is not the way to go - it is up to us who we trade with not a load of jihadi warriors pumped up on religious ferver.

Besides I think we should supply our allies with weapons - bit pointless having them as allies if you dont.