London Bridge Incident

rick_chasey

John - why did you join a bike forum to exclusively discuss this issue?

mr_goo

Matthewfalle wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

How is it that various police forces in the UK can liaise with their counterparts across Europe to impose travel bans on thousands of football hooligans and stop them at borders. Yet those on watch lists and suspected of extremist links and who pose a threat to security have managed to breach borders and security checks....? Just a thought.

How many of how many have "breached borders and security checks"? Or is this another Goo-ism?

Not a Goo-ism. Ithe occurred to me that the anti-hooligan operations across Europe already have a decent infrastructure with shared intell. Are there any lessons to be learnt from this operation? which stops hooligans at borders plus removes travel documents when there is a risk of an exodus of hooligans attending tournaments or single matches.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

Most right minded individuals would thing that a third parties right to life (Article 2) and right to liberty and security (Article 5) would trump the right of a person to kill others. Claiming the rights from freedom of thought, belief and religion (Article 9), Freedom of expression (Article 10) and Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11) are not really a defence in this scenario. As always the human rights act is a balance. If one parties view of their rights under an article removes another's rights then there needs to be a discussion about the validity of both parties rights and which takes priority. In the case of terrorism linked to extreme Muslim ideology, this is likely to lose in court.

So whilst human rights need to apply to everyone they are often contradictory and this is point I feel people miss with human rights by viewing it as their right in isolation of others.

You've changed horses. In the first post you referred to overruling a human right. Nobody has a human right to commit violence against others so what right is being overruled. As I mentioned, there are already certain restrictions on free speech, in particular inciting violence, so again no rights need be overruled.

kingstongraham

Mr Goo wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

How is it that various police forces in the UK can liaise with their counterparts across Europe to impose travel bans on thousands of football hooligans and stop them at borders. Yet those on watch lists and suspected of extremist links and who pose a threat to security have managed to breach borders and security checks....? Just a thought.

How many of how many have "breached borders and security checks"? Or is this another Goo-ism?

Not a Goo-ism. Ithe occurred to me that the anti-hooligan operations across Europe already have a decent infrastructure with shared intell. Are there any lessons to be learnt from this operation? which stops hooligans at borders plus removes travel documents when there is a risk of an exodus of hooligans attending tournaments or single matches.

Those are people convicted of a football related offence - and the football banning orders are not uncontroversial.

TPIMs are what should restrict movements and activities of suspected (but not convicted) terrorists.

mamba80

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

But your point on waiting for the results a review..... like BJ has done? very quick to divert blame to the security services.

I wasn't commenting on Bozza. He's a politician 2 days before a general election so can't be expected to talk any sense.

A review is needed - preferably behind closed doors to find out what went wrong, if indeed anything did go wrong. (Given the number of potential terrorists and the desire to maintain our "normal" lifestyles, it may simply be impossible to reduce the number of terrorist incidents to zero.) A public review simply to cast blame would be a waste of time.

There seems basically three "options":

1 - Intelligence services did their best given unrealistic political and/or financial constraints from the government.

2 - Intelligence services were asleep at the wheel and didn't do their job.

3 - A whole succession of individually reasonable actions resulted in the tragic outcome.

You've already decided 1. Bozza appears to have decided 2. I'm open minded as I don't know the facts.

And if the review takes 2 years then so be it. The terror threat will be around forever, so if it takes time to identify and fix any issues with the way the intelligence services work than so be it. It's better than doing nothing or engaging in short term opportunistic posturing.

BJ talk sense at anytime would be a first.

As i said, not all attacks can be thwarted, however if someone warns you about a guy via an international watch list and you do nothing about it you should be accountable for this action or lack off, Governments should explain why Police numbers were cut by 20k and firearms by 1500.

what we dont need is to carry on as we are, spending forever having some inquiry, whilst certain people can go about planning death on our streets, unimpeded - if there is an attack in a provincial city, we could have far higher numbers killed, shall we wait for that to happen?
this threat has been known about since 9/11 and in our specific case, 7/7 if Gov/sec forces have sat back and not resourced or planned for these events then they should held accountable.

Its funny that both yourself and Bomp are quite happy to give us the benefit of your opinions on all sorts of subjects that you know little about (as do i!!! its forum after all) but the moment the Tories have to face some probing questions on their mistakes, (by myself and many others inc experts in the field) its suddenly "well if you know so much contact MI5 etc etc blah blah"

i wonder if you d both be so reticent if Labour were in power?

bompington

The number of police officers in the UK is pretty much the same as it was in 2000. But crime, overall, has gone down massively in that time, so surely less are needed?

It's quite disturbing the extent to which the left has abandoned its traditional "police are the class traitor agents of the fascist robber barons" attitudes and instead chosen to lump them in with all the other producer interests of the bloated state - NHS, teachers etc.

Of course, they're much too principled to be using terror attacks as a tool of crude political manipulation. :roll:

imposter2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

John - why did you join a bike forum to exclusively discuss this issue?

Interesting question...

TheBigBean

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

John - why did you join a bike forum to exclusively discuss this issue?

Interesting question...

Do you think it is enough evidence to put him on a watch list?

john80

Rick Chasey wrote:

John - why did you join a bike forum to exclusively discuss this issue?

I read the forum a fair bit and given its been a while since I posted have forgotten my details hence the re-register. I think I may be done with this particular topic but imagine it will be resurrected in a couple of months following current trends.

john80

TheBigBean wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

John - why did you join a bike forum to exclusively discuss this issue?

Interesting question...

Do you think it is enough evidence to put him on a watch list?

Definitely. I have a deep distrust of motorists. That us unless I am one when not on the bike.

john80

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

Most right minded individuals would thing that a third parties right to life (Article 2) and right to liberty and security (Article 5) would trump the right of a person to kill others. Claiming the rights from freedom of thought, belief and religion (Article 9), Freedom of expression (Article 10) and Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11) are not really a defence in this scenario. As always the human rights act is a balance. If one parties view of their rights under an article removes another's rights then there needs to be a discussion about the validity of both parties rights and which takes priority. In the case of terrorism linked to extreme Muslim ideology, this is likely to lose in court.

So whilst human rights need to apply to everyone they are often contradictory and this is point I feel people miss with human rights by viewing it as their right in isolation of others.

You've changed horses. In the first post you referred to overruling a human right. Nobody has a human right to commit violence against others so what right is being overruled. As I mentioned, there are already certain restrictions on free speech, in particular inciting violence, so again no rights need be overruled.

It is not that inconsistent as every time someone says we should remove the right to be a UK citizen from an individual people raise the human rights card. I am merely pointing out that everyone has human rights and when individuals threaten them they become secondary citizens and should be treated as such. It took us years to get rid of hook hand and jail Choudrey following our current system. If it is so good then keep going as we are if not then do some alterations. I don't believe this is beyond the wit of our MP's however I am a natural optimist.

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

John - why did you join a bike forum to exclusively discuss this issue?

I read the forum a fair bit and given its been a while since I posted have forgotten my details hence the re-register. I think I may be done with this particular topic but imagine it will be resurrected in a couple of months following current trends.

Not banned then?

shortfall

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... hs-london/

It's reported in the Telegraph and elsewhere that one of the London Bridge killers Khuram Butt has a history of cannabis use. No reports on the other two yet but you can add his name to the growing list of murderous Islamists who appear to have been radicalised and who have also been dope smokers. I know, I know, they probably all drank tea and ate junk food as well, but it does appear to be a remarkably consistent theme.

rick_chasey

Correlation not causation.

Fairly sure all of them took sh!ts too but that doesn't mean much.

shortfall

Rick Chasey wrote:

Correlation not causation.

Fairly sure all of them took sh!ts too but that doesn't mean much.

Yes I know, but as I've already pointed out, drinking tea, eating junk food and taking a dump aren't activities that are closely correlated with mental illness whereas smoking cannabis is. Put it this way, we're all asking what makes these people vulnerable to being radicalised and to go on to commit the most heinous acts of violence and murder and one thing we know that many of them have in common is the abuse of illegal mind altering drugs. Now you'll probably all know people who smoke dope who are absolutely normal functioning members of society or some of you may even smoke it yourselves with no Ill effects, but I think it's worth pointing out the correlation between murderous so called Jihadis and dope everytime it appears.

fenix

It will be interesting to see if any blood tests come back positive for drugs on them. How you'd prepare yourself for what they did without them is beyond me. And yeah I'd noticed it as a common theme for a lot of the attackers so far.

shortfall

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/06/tony-blai ... n-6688073/

Islamist convert and former journalist Lauren Booth has also made the connection.

meanredspider

Amsterdam - terrorist capital of Europe...

john80

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

John - why did you join a bike forum to exclusively discuss this issue?

I read the forum a fair bit and given its been a while since I posted have forgotten my details hence the re-register. I think I may be done with this particular topic but imagine it will be resurrected in a couple of months following current trends.

Not banned then?

Surely that would have breached my human rights:)

shortfall

meanredspider wrote:

Amsterdam - terrorist capital of Europe...

Yes and as I already pointed out there may be many reasons that Amsterdam hasn't suffered the sort of attacks we have that are to do with demographics, foreign policy, the numbers and types of immigration and how the migrant population is assimilated and so on. What I am careful NOT to say is that cannabis abuse is the ONLY reason for these attacks but I think it may play a significant role in how and why young people may have damaged their brains and made themselves vulnerable to warped ideologies. There is a similar if not stronger correlation in American society between rampage gun killings and people who use SSRI type prescription drugs. Raul Moat, Anders Brevik and several other mass killers are all known to have abused anabolic steroids. I'm curious as to why when there is a correlation between the use of powerful mind altering drugs and horrendous mass murder that the authorities seem keen to ignore it altogether as a possible cause or contributing factor. Shouldn't we be looking at this more closely?

shortfall

As well as Lauren Booth there are other public figures who are pointing out the cannabis link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... rders.html

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ ... -know.html

Indeed it was reading Peter Hitchens' blog that first alerted me to the possible connection.

meanredspider

Shortfall wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Amsterdam - terrorist capital of Europe...

Yes and as I already pointed out there may be many reasons that Amsterdam hasn't suffered the sort of attacks we have that are to do with demographics, the numbers and types of immigration and how the migrant population is assimilated and so on. What I am careful NOT to say is that cannabis abuse is the ONLY reason for these attacks but I think it may play a significant role in how and why young people may have damaged their brains and made themselves vulnerable to warped ideologies. There is a similar if not stronger correlation in American society between rampage gun killings and people who use SSRI type prescription drugs. Raul Moat, Anders Brevik and several other mass killers are all known to have abused anabolic steroids. I'm curious as to why when there is a correlation between the use of powerful mind altering drugs and horrendous mass murder that the authorities seem keen to ignore it altogether as a possible cause or contributing factor.

But NL has its share of migrants and historical colonies etc. And drugs are in very very plentiful supply. So if drugs were a significant contributory factor, Amsterdam is where it would have showed up. But, in fact, so far we've had France, Germany, Belgium, UK but not NL.

Personally, I think that there are several things at play here:
1. People take drugs and certain proportions of the population (youngsters etc) take more.
2. If you're the sort of person who is willing to get yourself killed, you might not worry about the health risks that might dissuade others from using them
3. The authorities and the press will highlight things that might seem "un-Islamic" like drink, drugs, women to show that this isn't a proper Islamic thing to do.

shortfall

meanredspider wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Amsterdam - terrorist capital of Europe...

Yes and as I already pointed out there may be many reasons that Amsterdam hasn't suffered the sort of attacks we have that are to do with demographics, the numbers and types of immigration and how the migrant population is assimilated and so on. What I am careful NOT to say is that cannabis abuse is the ONLY reason for these attacks but I think it may play a significant role in how and why young people may have damaged their brains and made themselves vulnerable to warped ideologies. There is a similar if not stronger correlation in American society between rampage gun killings and people who use SSRI type prescription drugs. Raul Moat, Anders Brevik and several other mass killers are all known to have abused anabolic steroids. I'm curious as to why when there is a correlation between the use of powerful mind altering drugs and horrendous mass murder that the authorities seem keen to ignore it altogether as a possible cause or contributing factor.

But NL has its share of migrants and historical colonies etc. And drugs are in very very plentiful supply. So if drugs were a significant contributory factor, Amsterdam is where it would have showed up. But, in fact, so far we've had France, Germany, Belgium, UK but not NL.

Personally, I think that there are several things at play here:
1. People take drugs and certain proportions of the population (youngsters etc) take more.
2. If you're the sort of person who is willing to get yourself killed, you might not worry about the health risks that might dissuade others from using them
3. The authorities and the press will highlight things that might seem "un-Islamic" like drink, drugs, women to show that this isn't a proper Islamic thing to do.

I don't disagree entirely, except that we are constantly fed the line that these "Jihadis" hate western values and our relaxed attitudes to sex and drugs etc. And yet, and yet so many of these so called Jihadis are discovered to have been womanisers, alcohol drinkers or drug abusers at some point before becoming radicalised. Sex, drugs and alcohol aren't what I describe as being consistent with strict, fundamentalist Islam so at some point something switched the brains of these young men. Cannabis is a consistent factor in many of their backgrounds and we know that it is strongly correlated with mental illness and psychosis. I'm just suggesting that we examine the possible link more closely, particularly at a point when our society is being g bombarded by pro dope propagandists who want to minimise any negativity around marijuana and legalise and profit from it.

kingstongraham

In other news, first IS attack in Iran kills 12.

rjsterry

So terrorists are frequently hypocrites. Not entirely a surprise. On cannabis use, I think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Possibly a tendency to get involved in heavy drug use and vulnerability to radicalisation are both symptoms of something else.

shortfall

rjsterry wrote:

So terrorists are frequently hypocrites. Not entirely a surprise. On cannabis use, I think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Possibly a tendency to get involved in heavy drug use and vulnerability to radicalisation are both symptoms of something else.

Possibly. Would you agree that we should examine the link more closely to establish whether drug use is a causative factor or a symptom of something else as you suggest?

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

John - why did you join a bike forum to exclusively discuss this issue?

I read the forum a fair bit and given its been a while since I posted have forgotten my details hence the re-register. I think I may be done with this particular topic but imagine it will be resurrected in a couple of months following current trends.

Not banned then?

Surely that would have breached my human rights:)

Meh, I make exceptions for banned people who return. Internment is the only way for them.

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Amsterdam - terrorist capital of Europe...

Yes and as I already pointed out there may be many reasons that Amsterdam hasn't suffered the sort of attacks we have that are to do with demographics, the numbers and types of immigration and how the migrant population is assimilated and so on. What I am careful NOT to say is that cannabis abuse is the ONLY reason for these attacks but I think it may play a significant role in how and why young people may have damaged their brains and made themselves vulnerable to warped ideologies. There is a similar if not stronger correlation in American society between rampage gun killings and people who use SSRI type prescription drugs. Raul Moat, Anders Brevik and several other mass killers are all known to have abused anabolic steroids. I'm curious as to why when there is a correlation between the use of powerful mind altering drugs and horrendous mass murder that the authorities seem keen to ignore it altogether as a possible cause or contributing factor.

But NL has its share of migrants and historical colonies etc. And drugs are in very very plentiful supply. So if drugs were a significant contributory factor, Amsterdam is where it would have showed up. But, in fact, so far we've had France, Germany, Belgium, UK but not NL.

Personally, I think that there are several things at play here:
1. People take drugs and certain proportions of the population (youngsters etc) take more.
2. If you're the sort of person who is willing to get yourself killed, you might not worry about the health risks that might dissuade others from using them
3. The authorities and the press will highlight things that might seem "un-Islamic" like drink, drugs, women to show that this isn't a proper Islamic thing to do.

They've had their own islamic terrorism. Look up the Hofstadgroep.

meanredspider

Shortfall wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

So terrorists are frequently hypocrites. Not entirely a surprise. On cannabis use, I think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Possibly a tendency to get involved in heavy drug use and vulnerability to radicalisation are both symptoms of something else.

Possibly. Would you agree that we should examine the link more closely to establish whether drug use is a causative factor or a symptom of something else as you suggest?

But there have been masses of studies on the effects of cannabis....

shortfall

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 49054.html

An interesting piece on the link between marijuana and mental illness.