Fuck off.I think she should be given a chance - she is right on this:
Urgent overhaul planned for Prevent which is ‘protecting terrorists and not the public’
Official inquiry finds the counter-terrorism scheme is also too focused on Right-wing extremism and not the ‘lethal threat from Islamism’www.telegraph.co.uk
"Suella Braverman is planning an urgent overhaul of the Government’s counter-extremism programme after an official inquiry concluded Prevent was treating potential terrorists as “victims”."
I have had 'prevent training' in my work and it vexed me. The speaker would talk about something involving a certain religion, but then immediately bring up something like the Thomas Mair/Jo Cox murder, to make the scales balance. They do not.
Suella Braverman: New home secretary given long list of demands after Priti Patel
Priti Patel’s successor ‘must not repeat mistakes of the past again and again’, groups warnwww.independent.co.uk
Is important too, but how come PP who seemed to be so divisive has left a "....lengthy list of demands"?
Could it be the left-leaning (& pro-remain) civil servants in the Westminister bubble, dragged their feet deliberately - and what is to stop them doing the same again for this new woman?
This bit puzzles me though: "Suella Braverman takes her post as the legality of the government’s agreement to forcibly send asylum seekers to Rwanda is examined by the High Court." I thought the Rwanda scheme had passed successfully through every court in the land and its enactment only stopped by the ECHR, so why are the High court examining its 'legality'?
She is also right on this Police issue too. My dad is retired Manchester Police person, he was raging when the police stood by as vandals toppled an Edward Colston statue into Bristol harbour. Don't get me started on what he said when the culprits were tracked down later (well they were all over social media) charged, put up in court and then found 'not guilty' of criminal damage! The country made to look foolish, by lefty lawyers, yet again.
ZenHalfTimeCrock
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 1,382
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Actually, she probably isn't, or rather, William Shawcross isn't, the author of the report that Braverman is basing her remarks on.
For someone who appears to be so spectacularly uninformed to be to be put in charge of evaluating Prevent makes him suspect to begin with.
From his Wikipedia entry.
'Shawcross justified torture such as waterboarding at Guantanamo Bay.'
Shawcross must be clueless if he is unaware of what anyone who knows the first thing about the art of interrogation knows, namely, that torture almost never yields actionable intelligence, because the person being tortured will simply say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear. For more on that read the unredacted newer edition of Ali Soufan's The Black Banners. It's a terrific book anyway.
Again from the Wikipedia:
In 2006, Shawcross warned of “a vast fifth column” of Muslims in Europe who “wish to destroy us”; we should not shy away from labelling the problem “Islamic fascism ”
Again, a pretty clueless observation. For a start, he is treating the Muslim population of Europe as if they are a monolithic entity, and failing to distinguish the rogue element, typically, the tiny minority that espouse Salafi-Jihadism and who are responsible for most acts of Islamic terror.
And so already Shawcross's credentials are deeply questionable. So now lets move on to Prevent in order to consider the claims that it should be working to identify terrorists rather than mollify them and treat them as 'victims'. And let's also consider the issue of whether more attention should be given to focusing on the Salafi-jihadist threat rather than that emanating from the far-Right.
The following is from Sara Khan's The Battle for British Islam: Reclaiming Muslim Identity from Extremism:
'Talking to people who work in Prevent, it is clear that the threat ISIS is of paramount concern; but Channel also deals with far-Right extremist referrals. The ratio of referrals for far-Right and Islamist extremism varies from city to city. According to the Hampshire Prevent team who deal with all forms of extremism, most referrals to Channel in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight are for far Right extremism.'
This suggests that - at the very least -a more nuanced approach is what is actually needed.
But what of the actual work of Prevent? The details of two genuine cases suggests that they are certainly taking the correct approach. They are taken from Khan's book:
'Another recorded incident was where Prevent intervened successfully with a 15 year old who told school staff he supported al-Qa'ida and wanted to attend a terrorist training camp. He also admitted to watching extremist material online and said he had spoken to radicalisers on the web. He was referred to Channel, part of Prevent, and it transpired that he had learning difficulties., Asperger's Syndrome, and exposure to domestic violence. A multi-agency plan was agreed which provided support to his parents and resources for his school. Crucially, however, the support of additional agencies was identified and referrals were made to Children and Mental Health Services (CAMHS), among others.'
Sounds a bit better to me than sticking the kid in Belmarsh, which is probably the outcome favoured by Shawcross and Braverman. Now here is the second case:
'One thirteen year old was drawing swastikas in his exercise books and on desks and walls, and using racist language. No referral was made at first until a youth worker at a club spotted the same behaviour. It emerged that the youth's father was in prison for racist views and the police were made aware that his mother was a drug user. The boy had already made contact with a white supremacist group that was radicalising him. A multi-agency plan was put in place to support him and his parents. The teenager was also exposed to positive role models and a strong counter narrative against far Right extremism.'
Again, this seems better to me than putting the kid in care or carting the kid off to a Young Offender's Institution.
Overall, I therefore cannot see what Braverman and Shawcross are getting exercised about.
Moving on, this is an extract from what a proper report looks like, something objective, rather than what Shawcross appears to have produced.
'Of the public respondents who said they had witnessed extremism, Islamist extremism (59%) was the most common, followed by Far Right (37%) and Far Left (29%) extremism. Practitioner respondents by contrast had witnessed more Far Right (68%) than Islamist (64%) extremism.'
This again suggests that far Right extremism is certainly as deserving of monitoring as Islamist extremism, a point which flatly contradicts Braverman's assertions.
Lastly, here is a link to the report itself, which dates from 2019.
In the future, rather than using the Daily Telegraph as your point of reference, I would recommend that you keep tabs on Khan's website or that of the ICSR.
About Us - ICSR
icsr.info
We're almost there, but maybe it's time to hear from the Muslim 'Fifth Column' that Shawcross seems to be so exercised about.
The following is from Islam Beyond the Violent Jihadis by Ziauddin Sardar and is an extract from his encounter with Sixth Form Religious Studies students at a girl’s school in Bradford in 2015. These students almost certainly fall into this category:
‘Perhaps we can start with a simple question.’ Several girls raised their hands immediately, and I randomly pointed towards a pupil who oozed confidence. ‘Would you say that Islam is incompatible with postmodernism?’ she asked. There was no way I could duck the second question. ‘Yes, it is,’ I replied. ‘Postmodernism suggests that almost everything that provides meaning and a sense of direction in our lives is meaningless – such as religion, history, tradition, reason and science. It also argues that all truth is relative. As a faith, Islam seeks to provide meaning and direction in the lives of believers. It places strong emphasis on tradition, history, reason and science. And it sees only some truths as relative. Ironically, postmodernism itself functions as a religion for some people.’ A lively discussion followed, with some girls expressing slight disagreement with my explanation. ‘It wasn’t nuanced enough’, said one.
…As one question followed another, it became evident that the sixth formers were into asking critical, complex questions. And they were not going to be satisfied with simple answers. Not the sort of women who will go and join the ‘Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIL) to become ‘jihadi brides’.
…What, I asked, did the sixth formers think of those who leave Britain to fight for the Islamic State’? ‘Misguided’. ‘Brainwashed’. ‘Not very educated, are they?’ The answers came thick and fast. Another girl in hijab said, ‘They know very little about Islam. What they know they have acquired from the social media or websites run by ultra-conservative imams. They think they are learning about Islam but they are being fed propaganda and a literalist, extremist version of Islam.’ Another lively discussion followed, and we ended up exploring the reasons why some young Muslims are happy to give up their lives in Britain and head for ‘the Caliphate’ in in Syria.'
Hopefully, that will be sufficient to demonstrate that Braverman should not be 'given a chance.'
Last edited:
ZenHalfTimeCrock
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 1,382
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Then Braverman needs reporting to Prevent, as there is clearly a risk that she may have been radicalized.
Actually, if I remember rightly, Triratna used to be known as the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (FWBO) and were led by Sangharakshita until he got caught up in a #MeToo scandal.
What I recall about that lot from reading about them was how dull they seemed to be. But it looks like there was more going on there than meets the Dhamma-eye.
Ah those were the days, no need for courts and prisons, instant justice meted out on the spot, happy days.
I'll get me coat
I think she should be given a chance - she is right on this:
Urgent overhaul planned for Prevent which is ‘protecting terrorists and not the public’
Official inquiry finds the counter-terrorism scheme is also too focused on Right-wing extremism and not the ‘lethal threat from Islamism’
"Suella Braverman is planning an urgent overhaul of the Government’s counter-extremism programme after an official inquiry concluded Prevent was treating potential terrorists as “victims”."
I have had 'prevent training' in my work and it vexed me. The speaker would talk about something involving a certain religion, but then immediately bring up something like the Thomas Mair/Jo Cox murder, to make the scales balance. They do not.
Suella Braverman: New home secretary given long list of demands after Priti Patel
Priti Patel’s successor ‘must not repeat mistakes of the past again and again’, groups warn
Is important too, but how come PP who seemed to be so divisive has left a "....lengthy list of demands"?
Could it be the left-leaning (& pro-remain) civil servants in the Westminister bubble, dragged their feet deliberately - and what is to stop them doing the same again for this new woman?
This bit puzzles me though: "Suella Braverman takes her post as the legality of the government’s agreement to forcibly send asylum seekers to Rwanda is examined by the High Court." I thought the Rwanda scheme had passed successfully through every court in the land and its enactment only stopped by the ECHR, so why are the High court examining its 'legality'?
She is also right on this Police issue too. My dad is retired Manchester Police person, he was raging when the police stood by as vandals toppled an Edward Colston statue into Bristol harbour. Don't get me started on what he said when the culprits were tracked down later (well they were all over social media) charged, put up in court and then found 'not guilty' of criminal damage! The country made to look foolish, by lefty lawyers, yet again.
I think she should be given a chance - she is right on this:
Urgent overhaul planned for Prevent which is ‘protecting terrorists and not the public’
Official inquiry finds the counter-terrorism scheme is also too focused on Right-wing extremism and not the ‘lethal threat from Islamism’
"Suella Braverman is planning an urgent overhaul of the Government’s counter-extremism programme after an official inquiry concluded Prevent was treating potential terrorists as “victims”."
I have had 'prevent training' in my work and it vexed me. The speaker would talk about something involving a certain religion, but then immediately bring up something like the Thomas Mair/Jo Cox murder, to make the scales balance. They do not.
Suella Braverman: New home secretary given long list of demands after Priti Patel
Priti Patel’s successor ‘must not repeat mistakes of the past again and again’, groups warn
Is important too, but how come PP who seemed to be so divisive has left a "....lengthy list of demands"?
Could it be the left-leaning (& pro-remain) civil servants in the Westminister bubble, dragged their feet deliberately - and what is to stop them doing the same again for this new woman?
This bit puzzles me though: "Suella Braverman takes her post as the legality of the government’s agreement to forcibly send asylum seekers to Rwanda is examined by the High Court." I thought the Rwanda scheme had passed successfully through every court in the land and its enactment only stopped by the ECHR, so why are the High court examining its 'legality'?
She is also right on this Police issue too. My dad is retired Manchester Police person, he was raging when the police stood by as vandals toppled an Edward Colston statue into Bristol harbour. Don't get me started on what he said when the culprits were tracked down later (well they were all over social media) charged, put up in court and then found 'not guilty' of criminal damage! The country made to look foolish, by lefty lawyers, yet again.
M
M
mat
Guest
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...verman-immigration-students-b1029583.html?amp
"We only want brainy foreigners. The ones that wipe arses and clean shitters on a minimum wage can fuck off!"
"We only want brainy foreigners. The ones that wipe arses and clean shitters on a minimum wage can fuck off!"
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Kinell, always knew he was a dirty bastard of a defender on the pitch but never thought he was that bad off it.
5 Hit Gibbon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2020
- Messages
- 7,387
Did they make suspects crack by making them watch videos of Stoke City?
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Think there's something in the Geneva convention stopping that.