London Bridge

News, Banter and anything else non football!!
User avatar
jameskel
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:22 pm

Re: London Bridge

Postby jameskel » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:24 pm

Fuck off, Neville nosher

:D
2 x
Taans can fuck right off

User avatar
Dwayne Pipes
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:46 pm

Re: London Bridge

Postby Dwayne Pipes » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:27 pm

Muslims in this country will never be happy until they have achieved their goal of dominance.

Our ancestors would turn in their graves to see what this once proud nation has become.
1 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'

Re: London Bridge

Postby Neville Bartos » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:32 pm

Pennywise wrote:
Neville Bartos wrote:
papawhisky wrote:Brexit and Trump were not 'protest votes', they were simply votes. Just because the less liberal option won does not make it any different. They simply reflected a change in the views of the majority.

I do have one question for you neville...

We are hearing much recently about a watch list (supposedly 3000 people on it but the figure is irrelevant to the question). My personal opinion is that each and every person on that watch list should now be hauled in for thorough questioning, their homes and related premises searched and their phones and other devices checked for all correspondences and if that leads to added names on the watch list then they too be checked.

Do you think that would be appropriate or would it be violating their precious human rights?

P.S. I'm not assuming that you would, but please don't mention any outrage among the Muslim community at so many of their followers being questioned. I personally think that the majority of Muslims would welcome and understand such a move.


How many police do you think would be required to carry out the respective interrogations and searches of 3000 people? Though I had heard to number on these watch lists was 23000. And who is covering their police work while this is going on?
How would I know whose human rights were being violated unless I was privy to the evidence against them? One can only assume their behaviour isn't criminal otherwise they'd already be in jail or prison.

So, how exactly am I supposed to know if it's appropriate? It's certainly not practical.
But how are you or I meant to make a REASONED judgement based on knowing precisely nothing, other than that an indefinite number of people are being 'watched' for indefinite reasons?

Btw, I appreciate the lack of any vitriol in that post, thank you.



I'm not entirely sure anyone is suggesting they're all brought in at once, but I don't think it would be outlandish to expect a well funded task force to be able to get through 3,000 suspects in less than a year.


Cuts to the police under the upcoming Tory government would suggest this is not an option.
And given the disparity in figures I've seen with regards to how many people are being monitored, surely 3000 is best case scenario. And then there's the costs. The law would need to be changed. Could they sue afterwards?
Do they all get a barrister? Is the judiciary involved? Is it left to the military? The intelligence services? The regular police? And what is the point of the interrogation? What is the specific goal of pulling in these 3000 people? They're going to confess? What could they be charged with?
And what's the knock on effect? Terror laws have been used to disperse or arrest people who are clearly not terrorists. How long before interrogating someone under new terror laws becomes a convenient way of intimidating people?
Call me pedantic, but I don't think it's ever as simple as 'that's a good idea' or 'that's justified' or 'reasonable'.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
Pennywise
Posts: 1480
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:04 am

Re: London Bridge

Postby Pennywise » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:50 pm

Neville Bartos wrote:
Pennywise wrote:
Neville Bartos wrote:
How many police do you think would be required to carry out the respective interrogations and searches of 3000 people? Though I had heard to number on these watch lists was 23000. And who is covering their police work while this is going on?
How would I know whose human rights were being violated unless I was privy to the evidence against them? One can only assume their behaviour isn't criminal otherwise they'd already be in jail or prison.

So, how exactly am I supposed to know if it's appropriate? It's certainly not practical.
But how are you or I meant to make a REASONED judgement based on knowing precisely nothing, other than that an indefinite number of people are being 'watched' for indefinite reasons?

Btw, I appreciate the lack of any vitriol in that post, thank you.



I'm not entirely sure anyone is suggesting they're all brought in at once, but I don't think it would be outlandish to expect a well funded task force to be able to get through 3,000 suspects in less than a year.


Cuts to the police under the upcoming Tory government would suggest this is not an option.
And given the disparity in figures I've seen with regards to how many people are being monitored, surely 3000 is best case scenario. And then there's the costs. The law would need to be changed. Could they sue afterwards?
Do they all get a barrister? Is the judiciary involved? Is it left to the military? The intelligence services? The regular police? And what is the point of the interrogation? What is the specific goal of pulling in these 3000 people? They're going to confess? What could they be charged with?
And what's the knock on effect? Terror laws have been used to disperse or arrest people who are clearly not terrorists. How long before interrogating someone under new terror laws becomes a convenient way of intimidating people?
Call me pedantic, but I don't think it's ever as simple as 'that's a good idea' or 'that's justified' or 'reasonable'.


The military already assist the Police in any of these cases, this has been the norm since the 7/7 attacks mate.

I said it needs to be done by a "well funded task force." That task force should be operate outside of normal policing duties. This force already exists, it needs strengthening, funding and a remit to try and gather as much intelligence as possible,

The goal is simple intelligence gathering, as I have already said. Confiscation of any communication devices and thorough questioning, where further leads avail themselves, they should be followed to their conclusion, where nothing is found, release and monitoring.

The finite detail and minutiae are not my job or concern, there are those who work in these areas that are far more qualified than I.

My heart will sink if we experience another attack and the words "The attacker was known to the security services" are uttered from a news reporter.
0 x

papawhisky
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: London Bridge

Postby papawhisky » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:59 pm

Neville Bartos wrote:
Pennywise wrote:
Neville Bartos wrote:
How many police do you think would be required to carry out the respective interrogations and searches of 3000 people? Though I had heard to number on these watch lists was 23000. And who is covering their police work while this is going on?
How would I know whose human rights were being violated unless I was privy to the evidence against them? One can only assume their behaviour isn't criminal otherwise they'd already be in jail or prison.

So, how exactly am I supposed to know if it's appropriate? It's certainly not practical.
But how are you or I meant to make a REASONED judgement based on knowing precisely nothing, other than that an indefinite number of people are being 'watched' for indefinite reasons?

Btw, I appreciate the lack of any vitriol in that post, thank you.



I'm not entirely sure anyone is suggesting they're all brought in at once, but I don't think it would be outlandish to expect a well funded task force to be able to get through 3,000 suspects in less than a year.


Cuts to the police under the upcoming Tory government would suggest this is not an option.
And given the disparity in figures I've seen with regards to how many people are being monitored, surely 3000 is best case scenario. And then there's the costs. The law would need to be changed. Could they sue afterwards?
Do they all get a barrister? Is the judiciary involved? Is it left to the military? The intelligence services? The regular police? And what is the point of the interrogation? What is the specific goal of pulling in these 3000 people? They're going to confess? What could they be charged with?
And what's the knock on effect? Terror laws have been used to disperse or arrest people who are clearly not terrorists. How long before interrogating someone under new terror laws becomes a convenient way of intimidating people?
Call me pedantic, but I don't think it's ever as simple as 'that's a good idea' or 'that's justified' or 'reasonable'.




I would suggest that the events of the last few months may have made the Tories have a rethink, maybe not in general police numbers, but anyone can see that more resources need plowing into anti terrorism. A task force would of course need to operate on a most potentially dangerous first basis, no doubt some will still slip through the net, no police system can ever be perfect, but we can bloody well make it hard work for them. At the moment it all seems too easy for the terrorists and that in itself will motivate others to join in.

The reason that I directed my question at you specifically Neville is because you are offering strong opinions on why we SHOULDN'T do this or we SHOULDN'T do that (most of which I agree with) but you don't seem to have any reasonable suggestion as to a way forward.
1 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'

Re: London Bridge

Postby Neville Bartos » Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:03 pm

Pennywise wrote:
Neville Bartos wrote:
Pennywise wrote:
I don't understand why you keep comparing someone being run down by a car to someone, say, being deliberately blown up whilst going to a concert by an individual who believes our entire way of life should cease.

One is an accident, the other is an attack. An attack on our way of life......an attack on our children. These attacks seem to be escalating, becoming more frequent, more horrifying. They have nothing in common other than people dying. Why not mention cancer or plane crashes?

I'm sorry to hear about your cousin, genuinely I am. I served myself and have been to more repatriations and funerals than I would like to remember. It doesn't make your opinion, or mine, on a subject any more relevant though, sorry to say.


I was pointing out a disparity in emotional response to statistical probability. It didn't have anything to do with comparing an accident with an attack.

Our way of life has been under almost constant attack for as far back as you'd care to go. There have always been conflicting ideologies in the world and there always will be.
I think an increase in attacks is due to a simplification of method. Things like 9/11 and 7/7 were carefully planned and highly organised. This recent switch to using vehicles and simply targeting anyone on the street doesn't need any planning at all. It just needs some lunatic willing to kill and die. It's infinitely harder for the security forces to be effective against.
I'm firmly of the opinion that hate and finger pointing is in no way a positive use of anyones time or efforts.

I wasn't suggesting my opinion was any more relevant, merely that posting those opinions isn't 'fighting back', not in any practical way.
What is important is that we should speak up if we disagree with something.


We're in complete agreement at last! :i am genuinely amused: :i am genuinely amused:

We have been under consistent attack, but the difference here I think are the targets, who appear to be everyone, and also the perpetrators. These aren't some highly trained, organised terrorist cell. These cunts, for the most part, are bullied young men who have been brainwashed into a version of islam that has no room for our way of life.

You asked me earlier in the thread what I would do, or what is my opinion; I don't know how to solve the problem, if I did I wouldn't be posting here, but I have a couple of things I'd put out there:

- The last 3 attacks across Europe before Saturday night were perpetrated by those known to the security forces. We have approximately 3,500 known "risks" or jihadists in this country. 400 of them arrived back into this country after fighting for ISIS last year alone. They were let back in and "monitored." I have been and am a fervent backer of human rights, but we need to get these people in for interrogation, their email accts need to be hacked, their mobile phones.....all of them. If they're found to be involved in nothing, let them go and "monitor" them. My guess is a very good number will be caught with some very incriminating evidence.

- Internment. I have been one of those who've argued against the use of internment, but those deemed high risk should be arrested and either deported to known country of origin, or if British, interned, indefinitely. When confronted with the IRA threat in the 70, 80's and 90's, internment was used and I believe it should be again.

- Faith Schools. Ban them now. All of them. A society cannot be integrated when children are educated in such varying degrees. They're fucking dangerous.

- This last point I'm not sure how to implement or how it would work really.....but where an attack happens, or one is thwarted, the community that the perpetrator belonged to, namely the Mosque and senior figures within it, need to be more accountable. I don't know what that accountability looks like, but some of these extremists are coming from the same areas/mosques. Like I said, not really a fully formed idea.

I've gone off on a Frog style essay here, so apologies. I know the first 2 points are controversial and I don't like the fact that I'm suggesting them to be honest, but if something isn't done and soon, this is likely to get much worse with recriminations on both sides.


I agree entirely on faith schools. To be honest I think they're ticking fucking time bombs. I doubt there will ever be meaningful integration if faith schools are going to be part of the system. I genuinely do not understand why no-one in government can see the problem here. I know faith schools generally achieve better results, but at what cost?

I have a problem putting anyone in prison without due process. We supposedly live in a free democracy. Once we go down that route who knows where it will end. What's that phrase about roads paved with good intentions?

I've always thought that Mosques should answer to a central body. One that can monitor what is being preached and who is preaching it, but like you I can't be bothered with the practicalities. As you say this might provide some accountability and perhaps more importantly some positive direction.

It's hard to imagine anyone being monitored isn't having their emails, phones and whatever else monitored too. But unless people are being physically watched how do you stop someone hiring a van or buying a knife? And even if that does happen how would one know the intent was to commit an act of terror before it actually happened?
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'

Re: London Bridge

Postby Neville Bartos » Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:18 pm

Pennywise wrote:
The military already assist the Police in any of these cases, this has been the norm since the 7/7 attacks mate.

I said it needs to be done by a "well funded task force." That task force should be operate outside of normal policing duties. This force already exists, it needs strengthening, funding and a remit to try and gather as much intelligence as possible,

The goal is simple intelligence gathering, as I have already said. Confiscation of any communication devices and thorough questioning, where further leads avail themselves, they should be followed to their conclusion, where nothing is found, release and monitoring.

The finite detail and minutiae are not my job or concern, there are those who work in these areas that are far more qualified than I.

My heart will sink if we experience another attack and the words "The attacker was known to the security services" are uttered from a news reporter.


The military should have no role in policing their own citizens. If the military are involved that just means the security services are coming up short.
Look at the cuts, mate. Military down 20,000, police down 25,000. Even the promise of 'extra' armed police will only return levels to what they were in 2010.
A well funded task force, with a remit to circumvent the law, in the name of non specific intelligence gathering? Sounds very much like a secret police.

I don't think there's much doubt that these kinds of attacks will continue. I just hope we don't go down the route of paranoia and hate. I don't want to live in a police state, no matter how safe it is.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'

Re: London Bridge

Postby Neville Bartos » Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:32 pm

papawhisky wrote:
I would suggest that the events of the last few months may have made the Tories have a rethink, maybe not in general police numbers, but anyone can see that more resources need plowing into anti terrorism. A task force would of course need to operate on a most potentially dangerous first basis, no doubt some will still slip through the net, no police system can ever be perfect, but we can bloody well make it hard work for them. At the moment it all seems too easy for the terrorists and that in itself will motivate others to join in.

The reason that I directed my question at you specifically Neville is because you are offering strong opinions on why we SHOULDN'T do this or we SHOULDN'T do that (most of which I agree with) but you don't seem to have any reasonable suggestion as to a way forward.


Let's hope some investment gets ploughed back into the police, irrespective of who wins the election.

Mate, no answers you, or I, or anyone else comes up with on this forum will make any difference.
That said, If we want to retain our personal freedoms we MUST look at combating the cause not the effect. Less isolation, more integration, especially in schools. And some structure and direction in British Islam as a whole. We cannot have Mosques known for preaching radicalism left to get on with it. I think some kind of general council with powers to shut down Mosques would be a start. I don't see anything wrong with trying to centralise the religion, give it some structure, and top down authority.
I know some people want force and action, but if the war on terror has shown anything it's that the more radicals you kill the more seem to step up to replace them.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
Dwayne Pipes
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:46 pm

Re: London Bridge

Postby Dwayne Pipes » Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:40 pm

Eight minutes from the start of this atrocity to the killing of these vermin ,you think extra plod on our streets would have done the job quicker?
2 x

User avatar
Banjo
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 5:36 pm

Re: London Bridge

Postby Banjo » Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:01 pm

I am not a racist or a bigot

I do not like muslims though, they are not a race

A Muslim is someone who follows or practices Islam

It is a religion and a political ideology

It is designed to rule not to adapt, that is why it will never function in Western societies.
2 x


Return to “Topical Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mkhammer and 6 guests