Woolwich killing

[dazdon]

The problem is those laws aren't being enforced.

They march down the street shouting for the British Police/Armed Forces to burn in hell whilst the police escort them and keep them safe.

The handwringers will never see this.

Until they do it will carry on regardless.<br /><br />-- Thu May 30, 2013 3:36 pm --<br /><br />

There isn't anything in our law that prevents the police from arresting these hate preachers and their followers if they preach death.

Is that hard for you to understand?

That's what's being asked for and the typical left wing response is espoused....if these fucknuts don't want to go to jail they should stop threatening to kill people.

Or allow MI5 to monitor them and in some cases even ask them to work for them.

Why are you getting uptight?
Is the strain of coherent debate with folk who disagree with you proving to be a difficult task?
Why you are making this a left/right issue is beyond me.
I shall try and clarify one last time, before giving up.
Laws currently exist on the statute book to charge and prosecute those of any religious or political persuasion who make threats to kill.
So when sufficient evidence is discovered, then they can be arrested, the same as folk suspected of committing any other crime.
I really can't simplify it any more than that for you, other than draw you a picture with crayons.

I'm not getting uptight.

The facts are they don't arrest the people who threaten death do they?

Your crayon comment is a reflection of your own ignorance and failings...you keep ignoring the facts and posters like myself will just join the dots for you.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Just in case any body wants proof

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/part/1/crossheading/encouragement-etc-of-terrorism

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

The problem is those laws aren't being enforced.

They march down the street shouting for the British Police/Armed Forces to burn in hell whilst the police escort them and keep them safe.

The handwringers will never see this.

Until they do it will carry on regardless.

So it's the fault of us lefty handwringers that inherently right wing institutions such as the police force, the judiciary, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the entire criminal justice system fail to do their job properly and implement existing legislation?
Just how does that work, exactly?
Seriously, you are hard work, and I think I'll leave you to your contradictions, cliches and aimless ranting.

 

[dazdon]

Just in case any body wants proof

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/part/1/crossheading/encouragement-etc-of-terrorism

So why don't they apply the law then?<br /><br />-- Thu May 30, 2013 3:45 pm --<br /><br />

So it's the fault of us lefty handwringers that inherently right wing institutions such as the police force, the judiciary, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the entire criminal justice system fail to do their job properly and implement existing legislation?
Just how does that work, exactly?
Seriously, you are hard work, and I think I'll leave you to your contradictions, cliches and aimless ranting.

I didn't say it was the fault of the left wing apologists,i'm saying they can't see the truth even though the govt tell us they have over 2000 of them under surveillance.

After you pulled a post and asked me where I want to send them back to (When I didn't even type that) you carry on regardless even though it's quite obvious you have neither the mind or deductive powers to comprehend a post.

But I respect your right to your opinion regardless of how you come to your conclusions.

 

[Blue Hefner]

Just in case any body wants proof

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/part/1/crossheading/encouragement-etc-of-terrorism

So why don't they apply the law then?

I imagine its because the authorities see most of it for what it is, extremist who generally don't act on it and those that do generally get arrest prior to committing an act. It does not look good if the police are arresting people on marches and I imagine it causes more problems than it solves

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Just in case any body wants proof

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/part/1/crossheading/encouragement-etc-of-terrorism

So why don't they apply the law then?

I don't know why to the full extent? I had to do a law project on this last year, but my impression was; it was n't needed to start with there was already existing legislation to start with, the threat of criminal punishment was enough for some to cease or modify their behaviour (A DR with a hate preaching website shut it down), and it is counterproductive to treat every "sharia law preacher" and fundamentalist Imam like a terrorist figurehead. You will only succeed in pushing more "moderate" people further to the radical religious right.

There is also other issues such as how to define terrorism (Chomsky "what they do to us, but not what we do to them", Nuremberg analogy) and it may also bring in computer hackers to being subject to charges under terrorism offences. There is also blur between organised crime and terrorism although notable people that intended to commit both are the IRA and Pablo Escobar. If people are to be arrested and charged treat them as criminals, don't label the laws under "terrorism" and don't "legitimise" their cause by making them appear to be "a prisoner of conscience" to their followers.

 

[mackenzie]

I thought some already had been arrested, taken to court and sentenced. Before they managed to actually do anything. So the monitoring does work in some cases.

 

[dazdon]

Just in case any body wants proof

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/part/1/crossheading/encouragement-etc-of-terrorism

So why don't they apply the law then?

I don't know why to the full extent? I had to do a law project on this last year, but my impression was; it was n't needed to start with there was already existing legislation to start with, the threat of criminal punishment was enough for some to cease or modify their behaviour (A DR with a hate preaching website shut it down), and it is counterproductive to treat every "sharia law preacher" and fundamentalist Imam like a terrorist figurehead. You will only succeed in pushing more "moderate" people further to the radical religious right.

There is also other issues such as how to define terrorism (Chomsky "what they do to us, but not what we do to them", Nuremberg analogy) and it may also bring in computer hackers to being subject to charges under terrorism offences. There is also blur between organised crime and terrorism although notable people that intended to commit both are the IRA and Pablo Escobar. If people are to be arrested and charged treat them as criminals, don't label the laws under "terrorism" and don't "legitimise" their cause by making them appear to be "a prisoner of conscience" to their followers.

That's a good post...thanks for that.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

I thought some already had been arrested, taken to court and sentenced. Before they managed to actually do anything. So the monitoring does work in some cases.

Dazdon is talking about hate preachers only interested in hate preachers; monitoring is effective because you catch people before the act is carried out and have all the evidence to get a conviction, whilst the fact that they were prepared to kill dissuades the more moderate people from following their cause.

Radicalisation is a gradual process, arresting and charging Choudry will only attract him a few more followers who may then go on to join or form more radical and violent organisations.

 

[dazdon]

Dazdon is talking about hate preachers only interested in hate preachers

The thread is about the Woolwich murder and the radicalisation of the killers by political Islam.

Which is why the emphasis is on Muslim preachers.