Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Terrorist Attack in Streatham 02.02.20

123457»

Comments

  • From the BBC website today

    Ministers are aiming to pass emergency legislation to block the automatic early release of convicted terror offenders before the next prisoner is freed in three weeks, it has emerged.

    Sunderland shopkeeper Mohammed Zahir Khan, 42, is due to be freed on 28 February after serving half his sentence for encouraging terrorism.

    An official said legislation would be introduced to the Commons on Tuesday.

    It follows two attacks in recent months by men convicted of terror offences.

    Khan was arrested in 2017 and given a four-and-a-half year sentence in May 2018 after pleading guilty.

    He had posted a statement on a Twitter account from the Islamic State group calling for attacks. He also admitted a charge of distributing material designed to incite religious hatred after calling for Shia Muslims to be burnt alive.
    The government's emergency measures, which require backing from Parliament, would postpone his release until the Parole Board has given its approval.

    But ministers have been warned they face a legal battle over its plans.

    An ex-independent reviewer of terror legislation, Lord Carlile, said blocking early release "may be in breach of the law", while the Law Society of England and Wales said it could lead to more prisoners appealing against their sentences.

    But speaking on the Peston programme on ITV, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said: "This is about public protection - it's the first job of government to get that right."

    Mr Buckland acknowledged that the measures were likely to be challenged in the court, but maintained the government was taking the right action.

    "But with 3,000 or so subjects of interest currently on our radar, and many convicted terrorists soon due to be released from prison, we simply cannot watch all of them, all the time," he said.

    The government is aiming for its law change to clear the Commons by the time MPs rises for recess on 20 February and pass through the House of Lords over the following seven days.Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, said security services knew Amman "posed a significant risk".

    Question: is it right for the Government to rush through legislation aimed at preventing criminals like this from being given the early released they are expecting and which the Judge in the case will have taken into account?   I don't think so.  

    But I also don't think it's right that someone who held the views that he promulgated should be released into the public if he still holds them.  

    It seems that the Government are going to rush through legislation which will simply delay the date on which he is released.  This will mean that, if he is a threat to the public, we're simply delaying, by a few months, the date from which he can carry out his threats.  

    Instead of fiddling about with release dates, which simply change the date on which a terror threat might be perpetrated, I think the Government should consider the introduction of a new law which prohibits - and properly punishes - the act of "preparing, commissioning or encouraging an act of treason".  In this way, it would be straightforward to put criminals like this away indefinitely: they would only be allowed parole if they met certain, strict criteria, which include denouncing all previous treasonous beliefs.  

  • Has just been said on lbc it costs about £1m per suspect to monitor them for a year.... 
  • Chizz said:

    From the BBC website today

    Ministers are aiming to pass emergency legislation to block the automatic early release of convicted terror offenders before the next prisoner is freed in three weeks, it has emerged.

    Sunderland shopkeeper Mohammed Zahir Khan, 42, is due to be freed on 28 February after serving half his sentence for encouraging terrorism.

    An official said legislation would be introduced to the Commons on Tuesday.

    It follows two attacks in recent months by men convicted of terror offences.

    Khan was arrested in 2017 and given a four-and-a-half year sentence in May 2018 after pleading guilty.

    He had posted a statement on a Twitter account from the Islamic State group calling for attacks. He also admitted a charge of distributing material designed to incite religious hatred after calling for Shia Muslims to be burnt alive.
    The government's emergency measures, which require backing from Parliament, would postpone his release until the Parole Board has given its approval.

    But ministers have been warned they face a legal battle over its plans.

    An ex-independent reviewer of terror legislation, Lord Carlile, said blocking early release "may be in breach of the law", while the Law Society of England and Wales said it could lead to more prisoners appealing against their sentences.

    But speaking on the Peston programme on ITV, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said: "This is about public protection - it's the first job of government to get that right."

    Mr Buckland acknowledged that the measures were likely to be challenged in the court, but maintained the government was taking the right action.

    "But with 3,000 or so subjects of interest currently on our radar, and many convicted terrorists soon due to be released from prison, we simply cannot watch all of them, all the time," he said.

    The government is aiming for its law change to clear the Commons by the time MPs rises for recess on 20 February and pass through the House of Lords over the following seven days.Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, said security services knew Amman "posed a significant risk".

    Question: is it right for the Government to rush through legislation aimed at preventing criminals like this from being given the early released they are expecting and which the Judge in the case will have taken into account?   I don't think so.  

    Personally I don't give a toss if they don't get released when they were expecting to be released as long it's still within the period of their sentence. But then, I'm of the opinion that the sentence handed down should be the minimum period spent behind bars.
  • PaddyP17 said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    Chizz said:
    Hi @Covered End just wondering if you have had a chance to reflect on the post I sent as a reply to you.  To repeat, accusing someone of supporting terrorists is not on.  So, I will invite you to reconsider whether it's appropriate to suggest I "support terrorists" and to tell me which of the six points I highlighted you think I have no right to express.  Over to you. 
    Take it to the 'Inbox' will you.

    Cheers.
    What?! So it's on for a poster to say another supports terrorists publicly, and then not have to apologise publicly?! No, that's not how basic common decency works.
    I concur.

  • Leuth said:
    Talk of execution is ironic as the aim of the guy was to be executed

    I am so glad our wonderful SO15, no doubt embedded with our wonderful Special Forces, could grant his wish, once these twats are radicalised the % of returning them to a “normal” state of mind is very low.  Happy that the victims are recovering.
  • edited February 2020
    PaddyP17 said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    Chizz said:
    Hi @Covered End just wondering if you have had a chance to reflect on the post I sent as a reply to you.  To repeat, accusing someone of supporting terrorists is not on.  So, I will invite you to reconsider whether it's appropriate to suggest I "support terrorists" and to tell me which of the six points I highlighted you think I have no right to express.  Over to you. 
    Take it to the 'Inbox' will you.

    Cheers.
    What?! So it's on for a poster to say another supports terrorists publicly, and then not have to apologise publicly?! No, that's not how basic common decency works.
    No it absolutely is not on. I like others I suspect don't like threads being clogged up with arguments, especially this thread. It's depressing enough that these attacks have become a fairly regular occurrence. 

    I'd much prefer the original post accusing Chizz was deleted as it's pretty clear that Chizz isn't a terrorist sympathiser, but my (non existent) admin rights have been playing up lately so I couldn't do that. 

  • Leuth said:
    Talk of execution is ironic as the aim of the guy was to be executed

    I am so glad our wonderful SO15, no doubt embedded with our wonderful Special Forces, could grant his wish, once these twats are radicalised the % of returning them to a “normal” state of mind is very low.  Happy that the victims are recovering.
    I think I agree, but having a quick google I can see any statistics around this. 
  • PaddyP17 said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    Chizz said:
    Hi @Covered End just wondering if you have had a chance to reflect on the post I sent as a reply to you.  To repeat, accusing someone of supporting terrorists is not on.  So, I will invite you to reconsider whether it's appropriate to suggest I "support terrorists" and to tell me which of the six points I highlighted you think I have no right to express.  Over to you. 
    Take it to the 'Inbox' will you.

    Cheers.
    What?! So it's on for a poster to say another supports terrorists publicly, and then not have to apologise publicly?! No, that's not how basic common decency works.
    Doesn't mean it has to drag out. Covered End was tagged in Chizz' reply so will see it. If no apology is forthcoming it doesn't matter how many times Chizz brings it up does it. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Dazzler21 said:
    PaddyP17 said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    Chizz said:
    Hi @Covered End just wondering if you have had a chance to reflect on the post I sent as a reply to you.  To repeat, accusing someone of supporting terrorists is not on.  So, I will invite you to reconsider whether it's appropriate to suggest I "support terrorists" and to tell me which of the six points I highlighted you think I have no right to express.  Over to you. 
    Take it to the 'Inbox' will you.

    Cheers.
    What?! So it's on for a poster to say another supports terrorists publicly, and then not have to apologise publicly?! No, that's not how basic common decency works.
    No neither are on. I just don't like threads being clogged up with arguments, especially this thread. It's depressing enough that these attacks have become a fairly regular occurrence. 

    I'd much prefer the original post accusing Chizz was deleted as it's pretty clear that Chizz isn't a terrorist sympathiser, but my (non existent) admin rights have been playing up lately so I couldn't do that. 
    Yes you do
  • edited February 2020
    Dazzler21 said:
    PaddyP17 said:
    Dazzler21 said:
    Chizz said:
    Hi @Covered End just wondering if you have had a chance to reflect on the post I sent as a reply to you.  To repeat, accusing someone of supporting terrorists is not on.  So, I will invite you to reconsider whether it's appropriate to suggest I "support terrorists" and to tell me which of the six points I highlighted you think I have no right to express.  Over to you. 
    Take it to the 'Inbox' will you.

    Cheers.
    What?! So it's on for a poster to say another supports terrorists publicly, and then not have to apologise publicly?! No, that's not how basic common decency works.
    No neither are on. I just don't like threads being clogged up with arguments, especially this thread. It's depressing enough that these attacks have become a fairly regular occurrence. 

    I'd much prefer the original post accusing Chizz was deleted as it's pretty clear that Chizz isn't a terrorist sympathiser, but my (non existent) admin rights have been playing up lately so I couldn't do that. 
    Yes you do
    No I don't. You do. 
  • edited February 2020
    That's not an argument, that's just contradiction.
    ETA Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?
  • we now have one in East Croydon 

  • Has that been confirmed or is just a suspicious vehicle? Shouldn't jump to that assumption. 
  • Has that been confirmed or is just a suspicious vehicle? Shouldn't jump to that assumption. 

    The station was closed for two hours after officers called to reports of a suspicious vehicle at 8.46am. The Metropolitan Police cordoned off roads in the surrounding area and sent a bomb disposal robot to to examine a car, which was found to pose no threat.

    A spokesperson said: “The vehicle was not suspicious, although is believed stolen. The road will remain closed for a short time while the vehicle is recovered. Local people and motorists are thanked for their patience.”

  • You don't often find "The Metropolitan Police cordoned off roads in the surrounding area and sent a bomb disposal robot to to examine a car" and "the vehicle was not suspicious" in the same story. 
  • Chizz said:
    You don't often find "The Metropolitan Police cordoned off roads in the surrounding area and sent a bomb disposal robot to to examine a car" and "the vehicle was not suspicious" in the same story. 
    Or that the non suspicious car that caused roads to be cordoned off, is believed to have been stolen.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!