I wonder how many other people were stabbed on the streets of London over the weekend?
Should the perpetrators of these acts be executed as well?
Gang on gang violence is not the same as terrorism.
Both involve attacking and killing people because you dislike and disagree with them, with the further motive of instilling fear in other people so that you can dominate them. Therefore I feel that you haven’t really answered the question.
Much easier to rehabilitate a teen caught up in gang activity than it is with someone who has been brainwashed into a false ideology calling for death to all non-believers. I'm sure you knew that though.
What you say is true but it isn’t absolute. There are cases where Islamist militants have recanted and cases where gang members retain allegiance to their gangs even after years in jail. Certainly in places like parts of South America and even in the US gang loyalty and membership lasts for life. At what point does one decide it is time to kill them?
I am putting this forward as a serious point for discussion/ comment so I thank you for editing you original post.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What has do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man should have been set free?
I wonder how many other people were stabbed on the streets of London over the weekend?
Should the perpetrators of these acts be executed as well?
Gang on gang violence is not the same as terrorism.
Both involve attacking and killing people because you dislike and disagree with them, with the further motive of instilling fear in other people so that you can dominate them. Therefore I feel that you haven’t really answered the question.
Much easier to rehabilitate a teen caught up in gang activity than it is with someone who has been brainwashed into a false ideology calling for death to all non-believers. I'm sure you knew that though.
What you say is true but it isn’t absolute. There are cases where Islamist militants have recanted and cases where gang members retain allegiance to their gangs even after years in jail. Certainly in places like parts of South America and even in the US gang loyalty and membership lasts for life. At what point does one decide it is time to kill them?
I am putting this forward as a serious point for discussion/ comment so I thank you for editing you original post.
Yep, apologies I re-read yours after I'd posted and could see you weren't just trying to be inflammatory.
I think there is an issue we are in danger of overlooking. If he served his full three years and was still a danger, he shouldn't be let out until there is complete satisfaction it is safe to do so. So it isn't about letting him out early, but letting him out when we clearly do not know he is safe!
How would we ever know he was safe?
Well responsible, professional people would have to sign off and take responsibility rather than just release automatically. The police presence around the latest attacks suggest there were concerns about this bastard being released and that should never be the case. Personally, I can't see there is much of a difference between a dangerous mentally ill person and a radicalised one.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
An ideology that is TAUGHT from birth, and is reinforced as being a perfect theology, about the perfect man, will NEVER be something that a deradicalisation programme can overturn. Especially when headed up by the very people that these warped individuals are told to hate by the perfect scriptures they read.
P*ssing against the wind spring to mind.
Any theist that believes in religious dogma and laws is an extremist. That alone means that there are literally hundreds of millions of extremists in the world. Let that sink in.
Obviously by even replying to this I've been successfully trolled and the fish has been landed etc etc, but equally nobody should be allowed to get away with conflating an entire religion with a violent, cultist perversion of it. And yet somehow they always do
Yeah, obviously. My life. You serve only to muddy waters.
I can only assume you either haven't read the religious books that advocate this mind-set, or you choose to be blissfully ignorant of their message, intent and orders.
Religion is somewhat different to faith. Religious people follow the books to the letter (extremists). Those with faith choose the nicer parts whilst choosing to put their fingers in their ears when it comes to acknowledging the barbarity of the whole theology.
I get that you disagree. I'm just pointing out that you're either wrong or are trying to conflate two different things.
Unlike most people on this thread i don't work in counter-terrorism of the police force so don;t know the answers so can only thank the officers and wish the family of the innocent victims well. However, when it comes to filming random shit on your phone, I'm your man. I reckon police walking around Streatham high street with machine guns isn't a common occurrence so the person started filming it, probably to then whatapp it to a mate to see if they knew what was going on. They then cropped the video after the funny innocent occurred for a twitter post.
Does remind me a little of the London Blitz spirit. A shop in the East End getting bombed having a sign the next day saying More open than usual.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
Unlike most people on this thread i don't work in counter-terrorism of the police force so don;t know the answers so can only thank the officers and wish the family of the innocent victims well. However, when it comes to filming random shit on your phone, I'm your man. I reckon police walking around Streatham high street with machine guns isn't a common occurrence so the person started filming it, probably to then whatapp it to a mate to see if they knew what was going on. They then cropped the video after the funny innocent occurred for a twitter post.
Does remind me a little of the London Britz spirit. A shop in the East End getting bombed having a sign the next day saying More open than usual.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
The fact that people are released and are having to be under police observation because they're seen as a threat suggests the release is premature.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Any terror related offences should be given life with a view of parole once they are deemed no danger to the public. That could mean 5, 10, 50 years, whatever it takes to keep us safe.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Any terror related offences should be given life with a view of parole once they are deemed no danger to the public. That could mean 5, 10, 50 years, whatever it takes to keep us safe.
The law will be reviewed in this area in the near future I would imagine.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Seems to me that sentences of this nature need to be conditional. If you need to be followed by armed police, you shouldn't be out. That's not the start of a slippery slope, that's public safety.
I think a few people here could benefit from actually reading the Quran. Have a look at what it says and remember that in Islam it is viewed as an instruction manual for the believer, and Muhammad is viewed as an unimpeachable being. Check out what he got up to, it may open your eyes.
Unlike the Old Testament, which reads much the same, it has not been superseded by the appearance of another prophet, leading to a new instruction manual for Christians i.e the New Testament. Jesus wasn't the murdering type, it's fair to say.
Of course, the majority of Muslims choose not to follow their faith by the book, but a significant number do. You can choose to ignore this, or we can have a grown up conversation about how we deal with a growing population at odds with modern, secular, liberal values.
I think a few people here could benefit from actually reading the Quran. Have a look at what it says and remember that in Islam it is viewed as an instruction manual for the believer, and Muhammad is viewed as an unimpeachable being. Check out what he got up to, it may open your eyes.
Unlike the Old Testament, which reads much the same, it has not been superseded by the appearance of another prophet, leading to a new instruction manual for Christians i.e the New Testament. Jesus wasn't the murdering type, it's fair to say.
Of course, the majority of Muslims choose not to follow their faith by the book, but a significant number do. You can choose to ignore this, or we can have a grown up conversation about how we deal with a growing population at odds with modern, secular, liberal values.
Jesus wasn't the murdering type but many have been murdered in his name through history. Take the Spanish inquisition where your were burned at the stake if you did not convert to Christianity. In this day and age we demand common sense is applied to ancient texts from another time and those that do so are not the problem. Clearly Islam does have a problem but we can't conflate what radical islamists do with most muslims. People who take these things literally or interpret them to their own ends are the issue and it is wrong to attack the religion IMO.
Things like Sharia law are complex, but can not be tolerated in this country. Neither can treating women as second class citizens also IMO. People that make their lives in this country should understand this and abide by our values, not because they are Christian values, but because they are values our society is based on.
Terrorist jailed in 2018 and released last week. He was under police surveillance.
Apparently he pleaded guilty, in that case the death penalty should be re-introduced.
Problem with that is that then they become martyrs.
Hasn't he become a martyr anyway now?
Maybe to some, but I don't believe it's the same. If someone is trying to groom vulnerable kids into terrorism, the 'he was executed by them, this is a war' argument has the potential to be really powerful - far more powerful than 'he is in prison'. If we introduce a system where the state kills people, either out of revenge or out of fear, it makes it a lot easier for the scumbags to peddle their filthy ideas that there's some sort of holy-war, onto kids who feel alienated from society.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Any terror related offences should be given life with a view of parole once they are deemed no danger to the public. That could mean 5, 10, 50 years, whatever it takes to keep us safe.
There's a very, very strong case for that. Obviously the devil is in the detail (what, precisely, is a terror-related offence, for example?). And there are faults with this idea as a policy (for example, it would leave, wide open, the opportunity for terrorists to inflict and infect other inmates with their disgusting views).
But, as a starting point, it seems to tick three important boxes: it would act as a deterrent; it's within the rule of law; and it would (probably) have public support.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Your instinct for a fair justice system is a good one. But in this case we have a radicalised religious movement which is dedicated to death and destruction. It is a death cult. It is not political in any real way, it has no realisable political aims or objectives, which even the IRA had and they were interned without trial.
They are effectively enemy soldiers who want to kill us. That is what makes it acceptable for them to be shot during their attacks and locked up until they can prove they are no longer a threat. That may be a very long time.
The tactic they employ is to wear suicide vests (fake ones in the case of the recent attack). The priority for police always has to be the safety of the public and the vests are worn to ensure they are shot and become 'martyrs'.
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Your instinct for a fair justice system is a good one. But in this case we have a radicalised religious movement which is dedicated to death and destruction. It is a death cult. It is not political in any real way, it has no realisable political aims or objectives, which even the IRA had and they were interned without trial.
They are effectively enemy soldiers who want to kill us. That is what makes it acceptable for them to be shot during their attacks and locked up until they can prove they are no longer a threat. That may be a very long time.
That would require people to completely denounce their beliefs, and that isn't going to happen as they'd then become apostates.
Someone remind me again what the punishment is for apostasy....
When I posted my original comment, I wondered how long it would take you to come back with a question. I don't need to expand on that as my original statement is quite clear. This man was known to pose a threat to public safety yet our crazy laws allowed him to be released. Utter madness.
You're right, you don't need to expand on what you've said. But, on the basis that this is a forum on which views are expressed, challenged and developed, I'd like to know more about how you'd like to see the law changed - and which one. If it's credible and effective, it deserves expanding on.
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
I certainly am not blaming the police, but I do blame a law which allows someone to freely carry out their crime when they are known to be a danger to the public.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man shopuld have been set free?
I'll give you a straight answer: he committed a crime, was charged, convicted and sentenced for that crime and was released from prison in line with law and policy. So, yes, it's right that he was still serving his sentence, but outside prison.
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
It was known that he was still a danger though, as he wouldn't have been being followed by police officers. Anyone still considered a danger to the public should not be released.
OK. Thank you for that answer. It seems you're now saying that anyone considered a danger to the public should be in prison, on an unlimited sentence. I don't agree with that.
Your instinct for a fair justice system is a good one. But in this case we have a radicalised religious movement which is dedicated to death and destruction. It is a death cult. It is not political in any real way, it has no realisable political aims or objectives, which even the IRA had and they were interned without trial.
They are effectively enemy soldiers who want to kill us. That is what makes it acceptable for them to be shot during their attacks and locked up until they can prove they are no longer a threat. That may be a very long time.
They're not tho are they? They're exploited saps, manipulated by others for who knows what end? They're not bound for eternal glory as martyrs sat at the side of their god, they're puppets destined to become bleak statistics. Protecting the masses from the perverted transgressions of a tiny number of protagonists will never be an easily stuck balance. Revising the default licence/parole aspect of custodial sentences for terrorist offenses will be a wise starting point. Those diagnosed criminally insane aren't considered for parole. But no political careerist is likely to grasp that thorny proposition however loudly the gutter press hectors.
Comments
What law do you think should be introduced that allows for people to be jailed indefinitely on the basis that they might otherwise break the law?
For me, the horrible crime that took place yesterday was entirely the fault of the perpetrator, not the police or the law.
Do YOU think that it is right that this man should have been set free?
I don't think people should be imprisoned for crimes they haven't yet committed. That's what it seems you are saying. Is that right?
Yeah, obviously. My life. You serve only to muddy waters.
I can only assume you either haven't read the religious books that advocate this mind-set, or you choose to be blissfully ignorant of their message, intent and orders.
Religion is somewhat different to faith. Religious people follow the books to the letter (extremists). Those with faith choose the nicer parts whilst choosing to put their fingers in their ears when it comes to acknowledging the barbarity of the whole theology.
I get that you disagree. I'm just pointing out that you're either wrong or are trying to conflate two different things.
Unlike the Old Testament, which reads much the same, it has not been superseded by the appearance of another prophet, leading to a new instruction manual for Christians i.e the New Testament. Jesus wasn't the murdering type, it's fair to say.
Of course, the majority of Muslims choose not to follow their faith by the book, but a significant number do. You can choose to ignore this, or we can have a grown up conversation about how we deal with a growing population at odds with modern, secular, liberal values.
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/12/over-40-percent-of-uk-muslims-support-aspects-of-sharia-law
Anyway, until the next time....
Things like Sharia law are complex, but can not be tolerated in this country. Neither can treating women as second class citizens also IMO. People that make their lives in this country should understand this and abide by our values, not because they are Christian values, but because they are values our society is based on.
But, as a starting point, it seems to tick three important boxes: it would act as a deterrent; it's within the rule of law; and it would (probably) have public support.
I happen to think they should.
They are effectively enemy soldiers who want to kill us. That is what makes it acceptable for them to be shot during their attacks and locked up until they can prove they are no longer a threat. That may be a very long time.
Someone remind me again what the punishment is for apostasy....