Terrorists

O-dear another thread that will disappear soon.

 

You can't deny UK citizenship to someone if they are single nationality, however if they are dual nationals/citizens that's different.
Searching of anyone with Asian features isn't random, by definition. I support profiling since we know its Jihadist we're looking for. Generally male. And definitely Muslim. So if a 4 year old girl from Norway or a 90 year old granny aren't people we should be worried about.

 

The section 44 powers used to be broader[1]. So when did they start needing reasonable suspicion of an individual terrorist (section 43)?

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ct2000(Section44)#contribution-10070875000349

Let's get a quote from Ms May:

The test for authorisation for the use of section 44 powers is, therefore, being changed from requiring a search to be "expedient" for the prevention of terrorism, to the stricter test of its being "necessary" for that purpose; and, most importantly, I am introducing a new suspicion threshold. Officers will no longer be able to search individuals using section 44 powers; instead, they will have to rely on section 43 powers, which require officers reasonably to suspect the person to be a terrorist. And officers will only be able to use section 44 in relation to searches of vehicles. I will only confirm these authorisations where they are considered to be necessary, and officers will only be able to use them when they have "reasonable suspicion".​

Why did she do this? Yes, you guessed it, it was because of an EU ruling (yay Brexit!).

And we know how much she hates those EU rulings because she said:

The Government cannot appeal against this judgment, although we would not have done so had we been able to. We have always been clear in our concerns about these powers, and they will be included as part of our review of counter-terrorism legislation.
​

Oh. That's not being very difficult either, is it? And "would not have done so had we been able to"? Odd, Theresa May is not normally one to run from a debate.

​

Of course it was the Labour party that had the broader stop and search (that you support), but...

My hon. Friend makes a valid point on the concern that many of us have had about the powers that were introduced by the previous Labour Government: in many cases, those powers did not introduce an increased element of safety. In fact, the shadow Home Secretary referred to the review of counter-terrorism undertaken by Lord Carlile, who said in his 2009 annual report: "There is little or no evidence that the use of section 44 has the potential to prevent an act of terrorism as compared with other statutory powers of stop and search."​

So I guess you support the Labour party who "chose to infringe those civil liberties" (Ms May's quote again).

Just a note.
That wasn't me arguing for or against broader stop and search. I didn't express an opinion.
That was Theresa May's opinion. More than an opinion really. She was Home Secretary at the time.

[1] There may be circumstances, however, where it is appropriate for officers to take account of a person's ethnic origin in selecting persons to be stopped in response to a specific terrorist threat (for example, some international terrorist groups are associated with particular ethnic identities).

 

Dunno why I bothered with my post.
UKIP's manifesto made exactly the same point and I'm sure you've read it (page 40 - reproduced below, the bold was their formatting).

STOP AND SEARCH
In 2014, Theresa May weakened Stop and Search, saying it was undermining relations with ethnic minority communities. UKIP warned this would lead to an increase in knife crime and, sadly, we have been proved right. Knife crime rose 24 percent in London last year when 61 people were knifed to death in the city. Sixteen people were stabbed and killed in London in just the three weeks before this manifesto went to print.

Theresa May showed weakness and inconsistency on Stop and Search and this has cost lives. UKIP agrees with the father of murdered schoolboy Damilola Taylor: the police need greater Stop and Search powers to combat knife crime.

UKIP will reinstate full Stop and Search powers to the police and reduce the burden of paperwork police have to complete each time they exercise this function. ​

 

Dynamite

 

UKIP have a point...if we're looking for Jihadists then we should be clear on that, not apologise for it and focus resources on those people most likely to be Jihadists (or put another way, don't bother with people who definitely aren't Jihadists).

Afterall, 100% of Jihadists are Muslims.

 

But not 100% of terrorists are Jihadists.

So can't we target Engineers too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlo_Lapshyn

Hang on, Thomas Mair is a 77 year old man.
So let's stop and search old people.
What we lose in the taqiyahs we'll make up in the Werther's originals.

Sorry, I'm being flippant. I understand the point you're making.

Anyway, this is what you'll get tomorrow - the exact opposite of what you want:

We will legislate to mandate changes in police practices if 'stop and search' does not become more targeted and 'stop to arrest' ratios do not improve.
(extract from the Conservative manifesto)​

 

Why do these type of threads keep getting deleted?

 

Exactly. So profiling is less about targeting those people who might be Jihadists, but ignoring people who can't possibly be Jihadists.

4 year old girl from Norway, possibly Jihadist? No...ignore her.

White male 50 year old from the UK (I'm describing myself), possibly Jihadist? Yes...don't ignore me.

 

Perhaps it's because our hosts may be accused of hosting a forum with what some may consider racist comments, Corbyn & Co would like to hire thousands more coppers at the taxpayers expense and the ensuing managers to stand by as they would be racist if they were to intervene and arrest certain nationalities/religions,

New powers are needed at the cost of PC and civil liberties we now take for granted, then round em up and bang em up for as long as it takes, make no mistake the terrorists are all on the radar but we have to treat them with kid gloves until they slaughter the next innocents.

 

I flag them as being hateful and I want the screwfix community to be a safe space that doesn't hurt my feelings ('cos I'm a delicate soul).

Seriously. We're guests here, and I think deleting these thread is screwfix's way of telling us to "keep the noise down".
These are public discussions and some of the comments could be considered quite offensive.

I get your point. So do the police. They're trying to balance civil liberties and public safety. I think they expertly walk a very narrow tightrope but I'm not a black man living in a city, so perhaps I would say that. I've never been stopped and searched. Perhaps I'm naive, but it doesn't sound too intrusive.

Is there a lot of stopping and searching four year old girls from Norway? Why has this become a thing? You've mentioned this girl twice. Did this happen and I missed the story?

Now they can still stop anyone on reasonable suspicion (even four year old girls from Norway I suppose - I don't know what would be reasonable suspicion though), but it used to be they could stop anyone if it made stopping terrorism easier.

 

http://community.screwfix.com/help/terms

The providers ("we", "us", "our") of the service provided by this web site ("Service") are not responsible for any user-generated content and accounts ("Content"). Content submitted express the views of their author only.

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.

All Content you submit or upload may be reviewed by staff members. All Content you submit or upload may be sent to third-party verification services (including, but not limited to, spam prevention services). Do not submit any Content that you consider to be private or confidential.

We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We reserve the right to take action against any account with the Service at any time.

You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content.

These terms may be changed at any time without notice.

If you do not agree with these terms, please do not register or use this Service. If you wish to close your account, please contact us.
​

Abusive, hateful, likely to offend? It's a wonder anything survives in the just talk section (or the carpentry section, or...)

 

Offensive is always taken, never given.

And talk of Islamists, Islam or religion in general is not racist...Muslims aren't a race.

 

Doesn't matter.
Their board, their rules, their call - for any reason without explanation.
Freedom of speech? Screwfix also has the freedom to tell us to "shut the hell up" by deleting these threads.
It's a bit like getting kicked out of a pub for bothering the other patrons.
Anyway, trying to keep within the bounds of our host's sensibilities seems just good manners.
And it's not like the internet is short of places to rant in.

 

Then go there

 

Not really worth writing in a thread that gets deleted quickly................

 

Part of the problem is defining a terrorist

All muslims? No. Some? Undoubtedly. Stop them all? Will it cause more issues than it cures?

Irish? All? No. Some? Yes. Stop them all? Why not, if you want to stop all muslims?

Norwegians ? All? No? Some? Possibly. Stop them all? Really? Dont stop any? Why not?

Englishmen? All? No. Some? Yes. Stop them all? Why not? Oh its not really possible is it.

It is easy to say lets stop a nd search all potential terrorists. But it really isnt that simple.

Personally I think we need more police and more intelligence officers. But they need paying for. Take your pick, but I accept that the things I like cost money.

 

Going back to the original post/question.

Passports. No body has a right to a passport. But why do we want to keep people who support terrorism here? Personally I am of the opinion if people want to go for those reasons, then let them. But on the strict understanding the passport is sacrificed and no return here is ever possible.

But, how do you define somebody leaving the country as going to support terrorism? Is it cut and dried? If it was they would be in prison.

Easy subject to sort out. It is Farage type speak. All easy words, but very difficult to implement. Great when you have no chance of becoming the Government, not so easy when you are.

I have (some) sympathy for the Government to keep the threat under control, whichever party that happens to be.

But to control it fully, means adjusting export markets and business, wars (and the profits made), and upsetting people worldwide. Hmmm!