FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Terrorist suspects
Terrorist suspects
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? " what would you like to do to them mate ? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I would like others to discuss which is why I started the thread. I curious to hear people’s views. " The numbers are very worrying , there is no easy solution, any sign of ‘wrong doing’ and they should be deported (if they are foreign ) | |||
"I would like others to discuss which is why I started the thread. I curious to hear people’s views. " I think your hoping for a few shocking posts bud lol it’s funny tho the ones on here anything to do with anything like this and certain people go quiet wiered | |||
| |||
"It does appear that a lot of them are home grown terrorists.so difficult to sort problem by deporting them..." really I wonder what the numbers are then ? | |||
"I would like others to discuss which is why I started the thread. I curious to hear people’s views. The numbers are very worrying , there is no easy solution, any sign of ‘wrong doing’ and they should be deported (if they are foreign ) "  | |||
"I would like others to discuss which is why I started the thread. I curious to hear people’s views. I think your hoping for a few shocking posts bud lol it’s funny tho the ones on here anything to do with anything like this and certain people go quiet wiered " Nothing to see here The thing that didn't happen outside a hospital in Liverpool yesterday was just a figment of your imagination and you can remain confident that the thing that didn't happen yesterday will never...not happen again  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Just to clarify Foreign was the question not U.K. terrorists but if they are U.K. it’s our problem so option 2 and 3 are the choices. I was just wondering around what we should do. " the prevent program was a dead duck from the start it was a pussy foot attempt I’d like us to get tough on these scum what do you think jackal it’s your thread ? | |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? " deport them to where ? Do we have an extradition treaty with Bradford ? | |||
| |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? " Starting to sound like it was a Syrian refugee who was responsible | |||
| |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? deport them to where ? Do we have an extradition treaty with Bradford ?" Liverpool guy from Syria but semantics as he wasn’t on watch list. My question is around those we suspect . | |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? deport them to where ? Do we have an extradition treaty with Bradford ? Liverpool guy from Syria but semantics as he wasn’t on watch list. My question is around those we suspect . " it’s your thread you must have an opinion mate ? | |||
| |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? " I'll take them out if someone else is paying for the tickets, meal cab, and a new dress etc or no fucking way! We could make them watch les mis until they just give up the will to live?  | |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? I'll take them out if someone else is paying for the tickets, meal cab, and a new dress etc or no fucking way! We could make them watch les mis until they just give up the will to live? "Needed a giggle at this late hour .. thanks | |||
"Keeping these suspects on lists doesn't do much good. Neither does the Prevent programme. We have to accept that these people are ideologically opposed to democracy. We have to start, as a society, speaking up for democracy. We have to defend equality before the law and free speech. We should teach those values in schools. We should defend them at all times. Nothing will change until we stand up and defend what we stand for" What do ‘we’ stand for ? | |||
 | |||
"The problem is that laws are skewed in favour of refugees. Even after they commit a crime, it's not that easy to deport them. Doing it based on speculation is close to impossible. Don't even get me started on the crowds that would gather in front of the deportation flights and protest in favour of criminals. But if we assume it's possible, they should be deported for sure. There must be a way to filter the ones with extreme mindsets before they enter. Force them to write an essay in support of homosexuality if they need asylum? Make them take a look at certain paintings that they get angry about and see how they react? I have plenty of ideas "What sort of painting ? | |||
"The problem is that laws are skewed in favour of refugees. Even after they commit a crime, it's not that easy to deport them. Doing it based on speculation is close to impossible. Don't even get me started on the crowds that would gather in front of the deportation flights and protest in favour of criminals. But if we assume it's possible, they should be deported for sure. There must be a way to filter the ones with extreme mindsets before they enter. Force them to write an essay in support of homosexuality if they need asylum? Make them take a look at certain paintings that they get angry about and see how they react? I have plenty of ideas
What sort of painting ? "The ones which made certain people to behead a teacher and attack a newspaper office to kill twelve employees in France. | |||
"The problem is that laws are skewed in favour of refugees. Even after they commit a crime, it's not that easy to deport them. Doing it based on speculation is close to impossible. Don't even get me started on the crowds that would gather in front of the deportation flights and protest in favour of criminals. But if we assume it's possible, they should be deported for sure. There must be a way to filter the ones with extreme mindsets before they enter. Force them to write an essay in support of homosexuality if they need asylum? Make them take a look at certain paintings that they get angry about and see how they react? I have plenty of ideas
What sort of painting ?
The ones which made certain people to behead a teacher and attack a newspaper office to kill twelve employees in France."Charlie Hebdo? | |||
"Keeping these suspects on lists doesn't do much good. Neither does the Prevent programme. We have to accept that these people are ideologically opposed to democracy. We have to start, as a society, speaking up for democracy. We have to defend equality before the law and free speech. We should teach those values in schools. We should defend them at all times. Nothing will change until we stand up and defend what we stand for What do ‘we’ stand for ? " I think your question speaks volumes. We have become so relativistic that we, as a country, no longer know what we stand for. Actually, most people do know what we stand for but our woke culture speaking only for a minority, has dominance in the country. We stand for freedom of thought, the right to express those thoughts, equality before the law, free access to the public square, rule by the people, common law and the sovereignty of the people. Sadly too many people are too mealy-mouthed to speak up for those views. What do you think our values should be? | |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? deport them to where ? Do we have an extradition treaty with Bradford ? Liverpool guy from Syria but semantics as he wasn’t on watch list. My question is around those we suspect . " also converted to christianity it now comes out hmmmmmmm | |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? deport them to where ? Do we have an extradition treaty with Bradford ? Liverpool guy from Syria but semantics as he wasn’t on watch list. My question is around those we suspect . also converted to christianity it now comes out hmmmmmmm" There is no "simple answer". The area is complex . It needs careful thought and consideration, knee jerk reaction to this crime will help no one except perhaps the terrorists. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! " He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned ) | |||
"The problem is that laws are skewed in favour of refugees. Even after they commit a crime, it's not that easy to deport them. Doing it based on speculation is close to impossible. Don't even get me started on the crowds that would gather in front of the deportation flights and protest in favour of criminals. But if we assume it's possible, they should be deported for sure. There must be a way to filter the ones with extreme mindsets before they enter. Force them to write an essay in support of homosexuality if they need asylum? Make them take a look at certain paintings that they get angry about and see how they react? I have plenty of ideas
What sort of painting ?
The ones which made certain people to behead a teacher and attack a newspaper office to kill twelve employees in France."hes baiting you he’s hoping for a racist answer | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )" lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs " Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence  | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence "its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke | |||
"If you deport them, they will get back into the country illegally. Didn't 1000 people cross the channel recently, how many never got spotted? So is deporting them a good thing?" Not if we send them to Belarus they would love them the more the merrier it seems on the Polish boarder.  | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke "Really? Why ? | |||
"The problem is that laws are skewed in favour of refugees. Even after they commit a crime, it's not that easy to deport them. Doing it based on speculation is close to impossible. Don't even get me started on the crowds that would gather in front of the deportation flights and protest in favour of criminals. But if we assume it's possible, they should be deported for sure. There must be a way to filter the ones with extreme mindsets before they enter. Force them to write an essay in support of homosexuality if they need asylum? Make them take a look at certain paintings that they get angry about and see how they react? I have plenty of ideas
What sort of painting ?
The ones which made certain people to behead a teacher and attack a newspaper office to kill twelve employees in France.hes baiting you he’s hoping for a racist answer "Can you read mate ? I gave the answer above, what are your thoughts on the OP? | |||
"Keeping these suspects on lists doesn't do much good. Neither does the Prevent programme. We have to accept that these people are ideologically opposed to democracy. We have to start, as a society, speaking up for democracy. We have to defend equality before the law and free speech. We should teach those values in schools. We should defend them at all times. Nothing will change until we stand up and defend what we stand for What do ‘we’ stand for ? I think your question speaks volumes. We have become so relativistic that we, as a country, no longer know what we stand for. Actually, most people do know what we stand for but our woke culture speaking only for a minority, has dominance in the country. We stand for freedom of thought, the right to express those thoughts, equality before the law, free access to the public square, rule by the people, common law and the sovereignty of the people. Sadly too many people are too mealy-mouthed to speak up for those views. What do you think our values should be?" Have another go? What do ‘we’ stand for ? | |||
| |||
"this question of what do we stand for is what is dividing usa.... liberals vs traditional... ive clearly gone to the dark side, although there is no sin that says thou shall not wear a dress.... I have to agree with much of the bible/religious foundation blocks... thou shall not kill, commit adultery, steal, gluttony, envy.. etc etc do form a solid base for a worth while society...dont they? Im not sure why people trash those ideals? "So our values are based on religion? Who is try to trash these values? | |||
"this question of what do we stand for is what is dividing usa.... liberals vs traditional... ive clearly gone to the dark side, although there is no sin that says thou shall not wear a dress.... I have to agree with much of the bible/religious foundation blocks... thou shall not kill, commit adultery, steal, gluttony, envy.. etc etc do form a solid base for a worth while society...dont they? Im not sure why people trash those ideals?
So our values are based on religion? Who is try to trash these values? "read some history books, i havent got time to play ping pong | |||
"this question of what do we stand for is what is dividing usa.... liberals vs traditional... ive clearly gone to the dark side, although there is no sin that says thou shall not wear a dress.... I have to agree with much of the bible/religious foundation blocks... thou shall not kill, commit adultery, steal, gluttony, envy.. etc etc do form a solid base for a worth while society...dont they? Im not sure why people trash those ideals?
So our values are based on religion? Who is try to trash these values?
read some history books, i havent got time to play ping pong "If you don’t have the answer then that’s understandable. | |||
| |||
"The thing is. The Uk houses the most groups around the world. The truth is if we csnt control our borders. Then polotitions favor one culture from another. Nothing will chsnge. The only thing has changed is british people are not united no more. They would rather film an incident rather than stop it. Also british people plan to live. Save to live. Save to start a family. Imigrants breed and claim." O dear, immigrants ‘breed and claim’  | |||
"I personally have conflicting views. It would be useful to know what the threshold is to get on the watch list.. is it a dodgy book in the house , is it evidence of thoughts texted? Is it watching too much terrorist daily tv? Is it looking at bomb plans online? Or is it walking out to blow up some innocent children at a concert? I want freedom and innocent until proven guilty but Thatchers approach did spark some initial talking from the IRA. Like I said I’m asking but I don’t have a conviction on it. " Did thatchers approach to the ira spark talks from the ira or was it ira approach to thatcher that sparked talks from thatcher? It was thatcher who vowed never to negotiate with terrorists and then she did. Seperate subject tho | |||
"Keeping these suspects on lists doesn't do much good. Neither does the Prevent programme. We have to accept that these people are ideologically opposed to democracy. We have to start, as a society, speaking up for democracy. We have to defend equality before the law and free speech. We should teach those values in schools. We should defend them at all times. Nothing will change until we stand up and defend what we stand for What do ‘we’ stand for ? I think your question speaks volumes. We have become so relativistic that we, as a country, no longer know what we stand for. Actually, most people do know what we stand for but our woke culture speaking only for a minority, has dominance in the country. We stand for freedom of thought, the right to express those thoughts, equality before the law, free access to the public square, rule by the people, common law and the sovereignty of the people. Sadly too many people are too mealy-mouthed to speak up for those views. What do you think our values should be? Have another go? What do ‘we’ stand for ? " I know what democratic values stand for... I've outlined them above. These are what Britain has always stood for. Maybe some people don't think they are important. What do you think of those values? | |||
| |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? "because it is mate | |||
"Keeping these suspects on lists doesn't do much good. Neither does the Prevent programme. We have to accept that these people are ideologically opposed to democracy. We have to start, as a society, speaking up for democracy. We have to defend equality before the law and free speech. We should teach those values in schools. We should defend them at all times. Nothing will change until we stand up and defend what we stand for What do ‘we’ stand for ? I think your question speaks volumes. We have become so relativistic that we, as a country, no longer know what we stand for. Actually, most people do know what we stand for but our woke culture speaking only for a minority, has dominance in the country. We stand for freedom of thought, the right to express those thoughts, equality before the law, free access to the public square, rule by the people, common law and the sovereignty of the people. Sadly too many people are too mealy-mouthed to speak up for those views. What do you think our values should be? Have another go? What do ‘we’ stand for ? I know what democratic values stand for... I've outlined them above. These are what Britain has always stood for. Maybe some people don't think they are important. What do you think of those values? " My apologies, I miss read your post, do you think the current democratically elected government or the unelected House of Lords share those values? | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate "A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? | |||
"When I was growing up the values nearly all of us grew up with were those of accepting democracy. Of accepting that other people had different views and were entitled to them. We no longer assert those values. It's as if we are ashamed to assert them. And so we have people who don't support those values. We should start teaching them to our young" I agree, we should respect another persons viewpoint, however , I don’t respect bigots though | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? "yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard "I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned "thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless "Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? "for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on "I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. "yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is "You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless "Getting PIP if I read it right, is not easy to do. Like people with cancer get refused PIP. Getting sectioned is also hard, the reason being that the hospitals don't have the beds. A friend was critically ill. Community psych nurse didn't want to section him, no beds. A bed was eventually found and he was then sectioned. The bed was in Scarborough, he was from billingham. | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers "did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score "Have a read https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/sectioning/overview/ Being sectioned is a very unpleasant experience , maybe there is a higher proportion of liars abs scammers where your from? | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Getting PIP if I read it right, is not easy to do. Like people with cancer get refused PIP.
Getting sectioned is also hard, the reason being that the hospitals don't have the beds. A friend was critically ill. Community psych nurse didn't want to section him, no beds. A bed was eventually found and he was then sectioned. The bed was in Scarborough, he was from billingham.
"that’s unfortunate for your friend but the two I know of where in roseberry park with in hours and getting pip is piss easy once you’ve been in there citizens advice even helped them with the 45 page form | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score "Btw, we’re any of these people that faked being sectioned immigrants or asylum seekers? | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Have a read
https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/sectioning/overview/
Being sectioned is a very unpleasant experience , maybe there is a higher proportion of liars abs scammers where your from? "aw so that’s it it’s very unpleasant so that means it doesn’t go on then and because you don’t have a clue you sim an insult at where I’m from lol | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Btw, we’re any of these people that faked being sectioned immigrants or asylum seekers?"no both old mates of mine white English born amd bred why did you ask that are you trying to say I’m racist ? | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Have a read
https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/sectioning/overview/
Being sectioned is a very unpleasant experience , maybe there is a higher proportion of liars abs scammers where your from? aw so that’s it it’s very unpleasant so that means it doesn’t go on then and because you don’t have a clue you sim an insult at where I’m from lol"Not at all, you know people who have faked being sectioned, I don’t . | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Btw, we’re any of these people that faked being sectioned immigrants or asylum seekers?no both old mates of mine white English born amd bred why did you ask that are you trying to say I’m racist ?"No, why is it relevant to the thread? 2 white blokes you know faked being sectioned | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Have a read
https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/sectioning/overview/
Being sectioned is a very unpleasant experience , maybe there is a higher proportion of liars abs scammers where your from? aw so that’s it it’s very unpleasant so that means it doesn’t go on then and because you don’t have a clue you sim an insult at where I’m from lol
Not at all, you know people who have faked being sectioned, I don’t . "you aimed a dig maybe where I’m from there’s a higher proportion of liars and scammers that’s what ya said | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Have a read
https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/sectioning/overview/
Being sectioned is a very unpleasant experience , maybe there is a higher proportion of liars abs scammers where your from? aw so that’s it it’s very unpleasant so that means it doesn’t go on then and because you don’t have a clue you sim an insult at where I’m from lol
Not at all, you know people who have faked being sectioned, I don’t . you aimed a dig maybe where I’m from there’s a higher proportion of liars and
scammers that’s what ya said "Must be, you know 2 people who faked being sectioned, I know nobody, | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Have a read
https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/sectioning/overview/
Being sectioned is a very unpleasant experience , maybe there is a higher proportion of liars abs scammers where your from? aw so that’s it it’s very unpleasant so that means it doesn’t go on then and because you don’t have a clue you sim an insult at where I’m from lol
Not at all, you know people who have faked being sectioned, I don’t . you aimed a dig maybe where I’m from there’s a higher proportion of liars and scammers that’s what ya said "Btw, I said ‘maybe’ | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Btw, we’re any of these people that faked being sectioned immigrants or asylum seekers?no both old mates of mine white English born amd bred why did you ask that are you trying to say I’m racist ?
No, why is it relevant to the thread? 2 white blokes you know faked being sectioned "so why did you ask that question then how was that relevant to anything I said ? | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Have a read
https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/sectioning/overview/
Being sectioned is a very unpleasant experience , maybe there is a higher proportion of liars abs scammers where your from? aw so that’s it it’s very unpleasant so that means it doesn’t go on then and because you don’t have a clue you sim an insult at where I’m from lol
Not at all, you know people who have faked being sectioned, I don’t . you aimed a dig maybe where I’m from there’s a higher proportion of liars and scammers that’s what ya said
Btw, I said ‘maybe’ "it was a dig grow some balls own it ffs | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Btw, we’re any of these people that faked being sectioned immigrants or asylum seekers?no both old mates of mine white English born amd bred why did you ask that are you trying to say I’m racist ?
No, why is it relevant to the thread? 2 white blokes you know faked being sectioned so why did you ask that question then how was that relevant to anything I said ?"What? I think I will leave this as it’s completely irrelevant , | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Btw, we’re any of these people that faked being sectioned immigrants or asylum seekers?no both old mates of mine white English born amd bred why did you ask that are you trying to say I’m racist ?
No, why is it relevant to the thread? 2 white blokes you know faked being sectioned so why did you ask that question then how was that relevant to anything I said ?
What? I think I will leave this as it’s completely irrelevant , "like your question was asking where they immigrants or asylum seekers | |||
"Hearing that tbe Liverpool bomber was a failed asylum seeker! He also had serious mental health issues ( sectioned )lol how easily fooled are the authorities and doctors ffs Getting sectioned is seriously hard to do. I wouldn't recommend trying it as a defence its seriously easy to do trust me I know people who have done it it’s a bastard joke
Really? Why ? because it is mate
A bit vague, so you know people who got themselves sectioned? yes I do if you don’t believe me that’s fine mate it’s really not that hard
I have no reason to believe or not believe you, tbh, I can’t see the advantages of trying to get sectioned thats fine some idiots do it for PIP easy money to them your from Manchester have you not seen shamless
Yeah, the work of ‘fiction’ that was on channel 4? for a smart man your so clueless you’ve not got a streetwise bone in your body don’t have a clue about what goes on
I work with homeless people, I volunteer at soup kitchens in Manchester City centre but you ‘know’ someone who purposely got sectioned but you can’t explain why. yet you still don’t know what goes on in tne real world mate yes I know of two people and if you read the posts you would of read PIP do you know what that is
You have absolutely no idea what being ‘sectioned’ involves, you certainly don’t get PIP based on that, how ever, of course people ‘screw ‘ the system , you should spend a bit of time with homeless people mate, they aren’t all liars abs scammers did I say they where please show me that ? I know exactly what sectioned is mate if you threaten to kill yourself or harm yourself you are put in a mental hospital for upto 3 days to be assessed and then they go on pip with depression and anxiety and everything else they can screw don’t try educate me about the streets I was born bred on a rough council estate and know the score
Btw, we’re any of these people that faked being sectioned immigrants or asylum seekers?no both old mates of mine white English born amd bred why did you ask that are you trying to say I’m racist ?
No, why is it relevant to the thread? 2 white blokes you know faked being sectioned so why did you ask that question then how was that relevant to anything I said ?
What? I think I will leave this as it’s completely irrelevant , like your question was asking where they immigrants or asylum seekers "Yes, that’s true, completely irrelevant. | |||
"I personally have conflicting views. It would be useful to know what the threshold is to get on the watch list.. is it a dodgy book in the house , is it evidence of thoughts texted? Is it watching too much terrorist daily tv? Is it looking at bomb plans online? Or is it walking out to blow up some innocent children at a concert? I want freedom and innocent until proven guilty but Thatchers approach did spark some initial talking from the IRA. Like I said I’m asking but I don’t have a conviction on it. Did thatchers approach to the ira spark talks from the ira or was it ira approach to thatcher that sparked talks from thatcher? It was thatcher who vowed never to negotiate with terrorists and then she did. Seperate subject tho " Chicken and egg and we will never know in reality but my money is on talking was better than quietly disappearing. She didn’t end the fight but I think she opened the door for others to follow. Like Reagan telling the Russians he was going for Star Wars which in trying to keep up would bankrupt Russia. They came to the table as they knew it was the end of their arms ace. Reagan wasn’t going to spend that money. | |||
"The thing is. The Uk houses the most groups around the world. The truth is if we csnt control our borders. Then polotitions favor one culture from another. Nothing will chsnge. The only thing has changed is british people are not united no more. They would rather film an incident rather than stop it. Also british people plan to live. Save to live. Save to start a family. Imigrants breed and claim." Breed and claim ??? You must stop reading the daily Mail! Until that line your post was interesting . Then you end with that ! | |||
"this question of what do we stand for is what is dividing usa.... liberals vs traditional... ive clearly gone to the dark side, although there is no sin that says thou shall not wear a dress.... I have to agree with much of the bible/religious foundation blocks... thou shall not kill, commit adultery, steal, gluttony, envy.. etc etc do form a solid base for a worth while society...dont they? Im not sure why people trash those ideals?
So our values are based on religion? Who is try to trash these values?
read some history books, i havent got time to play ping pong
If you don’t have the answer then that’s understandable. "if you are to stupid or to lazy to read books thats understandable to.... see easy game to play! | |||
"this question of what do we stand for is what is dividing usa.... liberals vs traditional... ive clearly gone to the dark side, although there is no sin that says thou shall not wear a dress.... I have to agree with much of the bible/religious foundation blocks... thou shall not kill, commit adultery, steal, gluttony, envy.. etc etc do form a solid base for a worth while society...dont they? Im not sure why people trash those ideals?
So our values are based on religion? Who is try to trash these values?
read some history books, i havent got time to play ping pong
If you don’t have the answer then that’s understandable.
if you are to stupid or to lazy to read books thats understandable to.... see easy game to play! " | |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? " Fortunately those decisions are beyond the remit of a group of swingers | |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Fortunately those decisions are beyond the remit of a group of swingers" Who knew!! I was thinking I’ve got this!! | |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Fortunately those decisions are beyond the remit of a group of swingers" boris is a swinger and his dad lol i bet t.may was getting gangbanged by half of europe | |||
| |||
| |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker?" Yes, you would! | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker?" Not sure tbh, he was a confirmed Christian though | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would!" On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity" I haven’t got a clue, | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, " Poor response | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, Poor response" It's probably the most honest answer Fab has ever come up with | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, Poor response" I haven’t, do you know why he was still in the UK? | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, Poor response I haven’t, do you know why he was still in the UK? " You're an intelligent man, take a guess | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, Poor response I haven’t, do you know why he was still in the UK? You're an intelligent man, take a guess" Fab is a Remainer. He's got all the brains | |||
| |||
"Terrorism isn’t a “foreign” problem, it’s a global one, and when it come to instability around the world, we only have to look at how western countries go to places like Afghanistan and leave more problems than they found. " Agreed but that doesn't answer the previous question | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, Poor response I haven’t, do you know why he was still in the UK? You're an intelligent man, take a guess Fab is a Remainer. He's got all the brains "You should ask him to lend you them sometime. | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, Poor response I haven’t, do you know why he was still in the UK? You're an intelligent man, take a guess Fab is a Remainer. He's got all the brains
You should ask him to lend you them sometime. "You're here... can't you answer for him | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, Poor response I haven’t, do you know why he was still in the UK? You're an intelligent man, take a guess Fab is a Remainer. He's got all the brains
You should ask him to lend you them sometime.
You're here... can't you answer for him"Fab doesn’t need my help with Adrian all he has to do is wait for Adrian to shoot himself in the foot . I’ll enjoy the anticipation thanks.
| |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, Poor response I haven’t, do you know why he was still in the UK? You're an intelligent man, take a guess Fab is a Remainer. He's got all the brains
You should ask him to lend you them sometime.
You're here... can't you answer for him
Fab doesn’t need my help with Adrian all he has to do is wait for Adrian to shoot himself in the foot . I’ll enjoy the anticipation thanks.
"Do you have any suggestions as to the answer | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, Poor response I haven’t, do you know why he was still in the UK? You're an intelligent man, take a guess" The authorities are incompetent? Now, let’s stop playing games, tell me what you ‘know’? | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, Poor response I haven’t, do you know why he was still in the UK? You're an intelligent man, take a guess The authorities are incompetent? Now, let’s stop playing games, tell me what you ‘know’? " What do you know? | |||
"Would I be correct in thinking that Emad Al swealman is a failed asylum seeker? Yes, you would! On that basis, isn't the obvious question "why was he still in the UK" irrelevant of whether or not he had switched religion to Christianity I haven’t got a clue, Poor response I haven’t, do you know why he was still in the UK? You're an intelligent man, take a guess The authorities are incompetent? Now, let’s stop playing games, tell me what you ‘know’? What do you know?" Nothing, I shall say it again, I don’t know why he wasn’t deported . | |||
"Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? " Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. | |||
| |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. " Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ?? | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??" jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone " Exactly, we should never have gone there. Every overseas military intervention we do, just makes things worse. But like it or not, we've already had our armies fucking over these countries (thank you to Mr Blair and most every PM after, and probably a few before as well), and now our government has absolutely no idea how to fix things. And no, I don't claim to know what to do either, we just shouldn't have gone there in the first place. | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??" So what's your plan? You seem to see all the negatives ... let's hear some good ideas for bonce | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone " I went to school with kids from Iraq and Iran. I’ve still got friends there. They had a functioning open society although Saddam was a twat he kept a lid on the tribal bollocks and the extremists in Iraq. Just like the mullahs control Iran. Yes I hate their repression too but the shah was also a twat but a friendlier twat to us. We had no plan when we destroyed the Iraq society. We disbanded everything that makes a functioning government including the army. Half of ISIS started with the unemployed Iraqi army. The only building not attacked during the gulf war was the oil ministry. What a surprise. If we’d had a plan then the country wouldn’t have collapsed and it would not have fed the extremists. Theses were once great civilisations and oil brought them crashing into the twentieth century. Think about it, if we had turned medieval,Britain into an industrial country in a few decades the country would still be full of extremist catholic’s and Protestants believing god was in the clouds and everyone ignoring their religion should burnt at the stake. | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone I went to school with kids from Iraq and Iran. I’ve still got friends there. They had a functioning open society although Saddam was a twat he kept a lid on the tribal bollocks and the extremists in Iraq. Just like the mullahs control Iran. Yes I hate their repression too but the shah was also a twat but a friendlier twat to us. We had no plan when we destroyed the Iraq society. We disbanded everything that makes a functioning government including the army. Half of ISIS started with the unemployed Iraqi army. The only building not attacked during the gulf war was the oil ministry. What a surprise. If we’d had a plan then the country wouldn’t have collapsed and it would not have fed the extremists. Theses were once great civilisations and oil brought them crashing into the twentieth century. Think about it, if we had turned medieval,Britain into an industrial country in a few decades the country would still be full of extremist catholic’s and Protestants believing god was in the clouds and everyone ignoring their religion should burnt at the stake. " Very interesting...but what should we do with all these terrorist suspects? Any ideas? | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone I went to school with kids from Iraq and Iran. I’ve still got friends there. They had a functioning open society although Saddam was a twat he kept a lid on the tribal bollocks and the extremists in Iraq. Just like the mullahs control Iran. Yes I hate their repression too but the shah was also a twat but a friendlier twat to us. We had no plan when we destroyed the Iraq society. We disbanded everything that makes a functioning government including the army. Half of ISIS started with the unemployed Iraqi army. The only building not attacked during the gulf war was the oil ministry. What a surprise. If we’d had a plan then the country wouldn’t have collapsed and it would not have fed the extremists. Theses were once great civilisations and oil brought them crashing into the twentieth century. Think about it, if we had turned medieval,Britain into an industrial country in a few decades the country would still be full of extremist catholic’s and Protestants believing god was in the clouds and everyone ignoring their religion should burnt at the stake. " you keep saying we destyed Iraq like it was only the U.K. mate do you really think we would be burning at the stake ? We are centuries ahead in our way of life thinking beliefs and tolerance but no shock that you think we could be just as bad true to form ffs | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ?? So what's your plan? You seem to see all the negatives ... let's hear some good ideas for bonce" Bonce? | |||
| |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice And the government is already giving itself some of these draconian powers. Priti Patel can now strip anyone of British citizenship with no warning, no comeback. She doesn't even have to tell you. Just take your citizenship, even if you have no other, turn you into a stateless person, somebody who has nowhere on earth to be allowed to live. Yeah, sure she's only going to use it against brown people, only against enemies of the state, only against people that the tories don't like..." It might be an idea to read the whole thing before posting it 
It’s aimed at terrorists who are currently abroad who the uk does not want here. It’s got my full support!
If they want to go join terrorist organisations who mutilate and kill people for not being in their special club then fuckem!!!
Being a tv what do you think they would do to you? | |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice And the government is already giving itself some of these draconian powers. Priti Patel can now strip anyone of British citizenship with no warning, no comeback. She doesn't even have to tell you. Just take your citizenship, even if you have no other, turn you into a stateless person, somebody who has nowhere on earth to be allowed to live. Yeah, sure she's only going to use it against brown people, only against enemies of the state, only against people that the tories don't like... It might be an idea to read the whole thing before posting it
It’s aimed at terrorists who are currently abroad who the uk does not want here. It’s got my full support!
If they want to go join terrorist organisations who mutilate and kill people for not being in their special club then fuckem!!!
Being a tv what do you think they would do to you? "Why is that funny?? | |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice And the government is already giving itself some of these draconian powers. Priti Patel can now strip anyone of British citizenship with no warning, no comeback. She doesn't even have to tell you. Just take your citizenship, even if you have no other, turn you into a stateless person, somebody who has nowhere on earth to be allowed to live. Yeah, sure she's only going to use it against brown people, only against enemies of the state, only against people that the tories don't like... It might be an idea to read the whole thing before posting it
It’s aimed at terrorists who are currently abroad who the uk does not want here. It’s got my full support!
If they want to go join terrorist organisations who mutilate and kill people for not being in their special club then fuckem!!!
Being a tv what do you think they would do to you?
Why is that funny?? "He isn't laughing at the prospect of murder... he's laughing at someone being so ill-informed as to support terrorists who would wish to kill him. You knew that | |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice And the government is already giving itself some of these draconian powers. Priti Patel can now strip anyone of British citizenship with no warning, no comeback. She doesn't even have to tell you. Just take your citizenship, even if you have no other, turn you into a stateless person, somebody who has nowhere on earth to be allowed to live. Yeah, sure she's only going to use it against brown people, only against enemies of the state, only against people that the tories don't like... It might be an idea to read the whole thing before posting it
It’s aimed at terrorists who are currently abroad who the uk does not want here. It’s got my full support!
If they want to go join terrorist organisations who mutilate and kill people for not being in their special club then fuckem!!!
Being a tv what do you think they would do to you?
Why is that funny??
He isn't laughing at the prospect of murder... he's laughing at someone being so ill-informed as to support terrorists who would wish to kill him.
You knew that" | |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice And the government is already giving itself some of these draconian powers. Priti Patel can now strip anyone of British citizenship with no warning, no comeback. She doesn't even have to tell you. Just take your citizenship, even if you have no other, turn you into a stateless person, somebody who has nowhere on earth to be allowed to live. Yeah, sure she's only going to use it against brown people, only against enemies of the state, only against people that the tories don't like..." what colour is she ? | |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice And the government is already giving itself some of these draconian powers. Priti Patel can now strip anyone of British citizenship with no warning, no comeback. She doesn't even have to tell you. Just take your citizenship, even if you have no other, turn you into a stateless person, somebody who has nowhere on earth to be allowed to live. Yeah, sure she's only going to use it against brown people, only against enemies of the state, only against people that the tories don't like... what colour is she ?" | |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice And the government is already giving itself some of these draconian powers. Priti Patel can now strip anyone of British citizenship with no warning, no comeback. She doesn't even have to tell you. Just take your citizenship, even if you have no other, turn you into a stateless person, somebody who has nowhere on earth to be allowed to live. Yeah, sure she's only going to use it against brown people, only against enemies of the state, only against people that the tories don't like... It might be an idea to read the whole thing before posting it
It’s aimed at terrorists who are currently abroad who the uk does not want here. It’s got my full support!
If they want to go join terrorist organisations who mutilate and kill people for not being in their special club then fuckem!!!
Being a tv what do you think they would do to you?
Why is that funny??
He isn't laughing at the prospect of murder... he's laughing at someone being so ill-informed as to support terrorists who would wish to kill him.
You knew that"Thanks Ade | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone I went to school with kids from Iraq and Iran. I’ve still got friends there. They had a functioning open society although Saddam was a twat he kept a lid on the tribal bollocks and the extremists in Iraq. Just like the mullahs control Iran. Yes I hate their repression too but the shah was also a twat but a friendlier twat to us. We had no plan when we destroyed the Iraq society. We disbanded everything that makes a functioning government including the army. Half of ISIS started with the unemployed Iraqi army. The only building not attacked during the gulf war was the oil ministry. What a surprise. If we’d had a plan then the country wouldn’t have collapsed and it would not have fed the extremists. Theses were once great civilisations and oil brought them crashing into the twentieth century. Think about it, if we had turned medieval,Britain into an industrial country in a few decades the country would still be full of extremist catholic’s and Protestants believing god was in the clouds and everyone ignoring their religion should burnt at the stake. you keep saying we destyed Iraq like it was only the U.K. mate do you really think we would be burning at the stake ? We are centuries ahead in our way of life thinking beliefs and tolerance but no shock that you think we could be just as bad true to form ffs " Read the post properly I’m trying to compare their experience with how we would have handled it all. So we were standing alongside bush bombing the shot out of a country on the basis they had weapons of mass destruction which we had no evidence for and you think we are are innocent . We’re you asleep while those tanks went into Iraq? Those countries are that way because we were part of their destruction so yes we aren’t the only ones to blame but we are equally to blame. Blair wax a bastard crawling up Bushes backside in reverence to being a good boy and trying to appear strong.. To be really strong he should have said no there are no weapons and until there are we want no part of it. He was too weak. | |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice And the government is already giving itself some of these draconian powers. Priti Patel can now strip anyone of British citizenship with no warning, no comeback. She doesn't even have to tell you. Just take your citizenship, even if you have no other, turn you into a stateless person, somebody who has nowhere on earth to be allowed to live. Yeah, sure she's only going to use it against brown people, only against enemies of the state, only against people that the tories don't like... what colour is she ?" Priti Patel? She is of Indian heritage , she admitted that her own patents might it have been allowed to enter the UK under the proposed new immigration laws | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone I went to school with kids from Iraq and Iran. I’ve still got friends there. They had a functioning open society although Saddam was a twat he kept a lid on the tribal bollocks and the extremists in Iraq. Just like the mullahs control Iran. Yes I hate their repression too but the shah was also a twat but a friendlier twat to us. We had no plan when we destroyed the Iraq society. We disbanded everything that makes a functioning government including the army. Half of ISIS started with the unemployed Iraqi army. The only building not attacked during the gulf war was the oil ministry. What a surprise. If we’d had a plan then the country wouldn’t have collapsed and it would not have fed the extremists. Theses were once great civilisations and oil brought them crashing into the twentieth century. Think about it, if we had turned medieval,Britain into an industrial country in a few decades the country would still be full of extremist catholic’s and Protestants believing god was in the clouds and everyone ignoring their religion should burnt at the stake. you keep saying we destyed Iraq like it was only the U.K. mate do you really think we would be burning at the stake ? We are centuries ahead in our way of life thinking beliefs and tolerance but no shock that you think we could be just as bad true to form ffs Read the post properly I’m trying to compare their experience with how we would have handled it all. So we were standing alongside bush bombing the shot out of a country on the basis they had weapons of mass destruction which we had no evidence for and you think we are are innocent . We’re you asleep while those tanks went into Iraq? Those countries are that way because we were part of their destruction so yes we aren’t the only ones to blame but we are equally to blame. Blair wax a bastard crawling up Bushes backside in reverence to being a good boy and trying to appear strong.. To be really strong he should have said no there are no weapons and until there are we want no part of it. He was too weak. " And what is ironic it was all legitimised by the voters. | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone I went to school with kids from Iraq and Iran. I’ve still got friends there. They had a functioning open society although Saddam was a twat he kept a lid on the tribal bollocks and the extremists in Iraq. Just like the mullahs control Iran. Yes I hate their repression too but the shah was also a twat but a friendlier twat to us. We had no plan when we destroyed the Iraq society. We disbanded everything that makes a functioning government including the army. Half of ISIS started with the unemployed Iraqi army. The only building not attacked during the gulf war was the oil ministry. What a surprise. If we’d had a plan then the country wouldn’t have collapsed and it would not have fed the extremists. Theses were once great civilisations and oil brought them crashing into the twentieth century. Think about it, if we had turned medieval,Britain into an industrial country in a few decades the country would still be full of extremist catholic’s and Protestants believing god was in the clouds and everyone ignoring their religion should burnt at the stake. you keep saying we destyed Iraq like it was only the U.K. mate do you really think we would be burning at the stake ? We are centuries ahead in our way of life thinking beliefs and tolerance but no shock that you think we could be just as bad true to form ffs Read the post properly I’m trying to compare their experience with how we would have handled it all. So we were standing alongside bush bombing the shot out of a country on the basis they had weapons of mass destruction which we had no evidence for and you think we are are innocent . We’re you asleep while those tanks went into Iraq? Those countries are that way because we were part of their destruction so yes we aren’t the only ones to blame but we are equally to blame. Blair wax a bastard crawling up Bushes backside in reverence to being a good boy and trying to appear strong.. To be really strong he should have said no there are no weapons and until there are we want no part of it. He was too weak. And what is ironic it was all legitimised by the voters." Yeah but,as I have heard numerous times on here all politicians lie, | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone I went to school with kids from Iraq and Iran. I’ve still got friends there. They had a functioning open society although Saddam was a twat he kept a lid on the tribal bollocks and the extremists in Iraq. Just like the mullahs control Iran. Yes I hate their repression too but the shah was also a twat but a friendlier twat to us. We had no plan when we destroyed the Iraq society. We disbanded everything that makes a functioning government including the army. Half of ISIS started with the unemployed Iraqi army. The only building not attacked during the gulf war was the oil ministry. What a surprise. If we’d had a plan then the country wouldn’t have collapsed and it would not have fed the extremists. Theses were once great civilisations and oil brought them crashing into the twentieth century. Think about it, if we had turned medieval,Britain into an industrial country in a few decades the country would still be full of extremist catholic’s and Protestants believing god was in the clouds and everyone ignoring their religion should burnt at the stake. you keep saying we destyed Iraq like it was only the U.K. mate do you really think we would be burning at the stake ? We are centuries ahead in our way of life thinking beliefs and tolerance but no shock that you think we could be just as bad true to form ffs Read the post properly I’m trying to compare their experience with how we would have handled it all. So we were standing alongside bush bombing the shot out of a country on the basis they had weapons of mass destruction which we had no evidence for and you think we are are innocent . We’re you asleep while those tanks went into Iraq? Those countries are that way because we were part of their destruction so yes we aren’t the only ones to blame but we are equally to blame. Blair wax a bastard crawling up Bushes backside in reverence to being a good boy and trying to appear strong.. To be really strong he should have said no there are no weapons and until there are we want no part of it. He was too weak. " Didn't Blair also take the UK into Afghanistan as well. Quite a record. Having said that he pushed hard for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. Should we have not intervened there and just left them to fight it out | |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice And the government is already giving itself some of these draconian powers. Priti Patel can now strip anyone of British citizenship with no warning, no comeback. She doesn't even have to tell you. Just take your citizenship, even if you have no other, turn you into a stateless person, somebody who has nowhere on earth to be allowed to live. Yeah, sure she's only going to use it against brown people, only against enemies of the state, only against people that the tories don't like... It might be an idea to read the whole thing before posting it
It’s aimed at terrorists who are currently abroad who the uk does not want here. It’s got my full support!
If they want to go join terrorist organisations who mutilate and kill people for not being in their special club then fuckem!!!
Being a tv what do you think they would do to you?
Why is that funny??
He isn't laughing at the prospect of murder... he's laughing at someone being so ill-informed as to support terrorists who would wish to kill him.
You knew that"My pronouns are she/her thank you very much. And no I do not support terrorists in any way. But giving the government the power to expel British citizens without recourse is not a good way to fight terrorism. It is not aimed at terrorists from abroad, it is specifically aimed at UK citizens who the Home Secretary decides she does not like (because removing UK citizenship from persons who are not UK citizens is not exactly a thing is it?). History shows us that every single time any government gives itself extra powers to do things without public overview, those powers will sooner or later be abused to the benefit of the government and the detriment of the citizens. Yes, I realise that as a trans woman there are many extremist groups that would have unfriendly attitude towards me. However as those groups include both extremist Muslim and extremist Christian organisations, most of the current UK newspaper owners, the upper management of the BBC, a large number of Conservative party members, the current so-called equalities minister Ms Truss, and the vast majority of the cabinet, I have distinct reservations about allowing the government to award itself powers to effectively destroy the lives of any persons that it takes a dislike to without due judicial process. | |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice And the government is already giving itself some of these draconian powers. Priti Patel can now strip anyone of British citizenship with no warning, no comeback. She doesn't even have to tell you. Just take your citizenship, even if you have no other, turn you into a stateless person, somebody who has nowhere on earth to be allowed to live. Yeah, sure she's only going to use it against brown people, only against enemies of the state, only against people that the tories don't like... It might be an idea to read the whole thing before posting it
It’s aimed at terrorists who are currently abroad who the uk does not want here. It’s got my full support!
If they want to go join terrorist organisations who mutilate and kill people for not being in their special club then fuckem!!!
Being a tv what do you think they would do to you?
Why is that funny??
He isn't laughing at the prospect of murder... he's laughing at someone being so ill-informed as to support terrorists who would wish to kill him.
You knew that
My pronouns are she/her thank you very much.
And no I do not support terrorists in any way. But giving the government the power to expel British citizens without recourse is not a good way to fight terrorism. It is not aimed at terrorists from abroad, it is specifically aimed at UK citizens who the Home Secretary decides she does not like (because removing UK citizenship from persons who are not UK citizens is not exactly a thing is it?). History shows us that every single time any government gives itself extra powers to do things without public overview, those powers will sooner or later be abused to the benefit of the government and the detriment of the citizens.
Yes, I realise that as a trans woman there are many extremist groups that would have unfriendly attitude towards me. However as those groups include both extremist Muslim and extremist Christian organisations, most of the current UK newspaper owners, the upper management of the BBC, a large number of Conservative party members, the current so-called equalities minister Ms Truss, and the vast majority of the cabinet, I have distinct reservations about allowing the government to award itself powers to effectively destroy the lives of any persons that it takes a dislike to without due judicial process."You realise the appalling treatment meted out to gays etc by Isis etc? Can you equate that to the Conservative party, the BBC etc etc? | |||
"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice And the government is already giving itself some of these draconian powers. Priti Patel can now strip anyone of British citizenship with no warning, no comeback. She doesn't even have to tell you. Just take your citizenship, even if you have no other, turn you into a stateless person, somebody who has nowhere on earth to be allowed to live. Yeah, sure she's only going to use it against brown people, only against enemies of the state, only against people that the tories don't like... It might be an idea to read the whole thing before posting it
It’s aimed at terrorists who are currently abroad who the uk does not want here. It’s got my full support!
If they want to go join terrorist organisations who mutilate and kill people for not being in their special club then fuckem!!!
Being a tv what do you think they would do to you?
Why is that funny??
He isn't laughing at the prospect of murder... he's laughing at someone being so ill-informed as to support terrorists who would wish to kill him.
You knew that
My pronouns are she/her thank you very much.
And no I do not support terrorists in any way. But giving the government the power to expel British citizens without recourse is not a good way to fight terrorism. It is not aimed at terrorists from abroad, it is specifically aimed at UK citizens who the Home Secretary decides she does not like (because removing UK citizenship from persons who are not UK citizens is not exactly a thing is it?). History shows us that every single time any government gives itself extra powers to do things without public overview, those powers will sooner or later be abused to the benefit of the government and the detriment of the citizens.
Yes, I realise that as a trans woman there are many extremist groups that would have unfriendly attitude towards me. However as those groups include both extremist Muslim and extremist Christian organisations, most of the current UK newspaper owners, the upper management of the BBC, a large number of Conservative party members, the current so-called equalities minister Ms Truss, and the vast majority of the cabinet, I have distinct reservations about allowing the government to award itself powers to effectively destroy the lives of any persons that it takes a dislike to without due judicial process.
You realise the appalling treatment meted out to gays etc by Isis etc? Can you equate that to the Conservative party, the BBC etc etc?"Adrian, I am far more aware of these things than you ever will be. Yes, Isis etc are appalling. This does not mean that the government should be trusted with unlimited powers to do whatever the hell they like. People wishing to give _any_ government such dangerous extra powers are stupid. Regardless of whether you trust the current government, you are also giving the powers to the next government, and the one after that etc. You have absolutely no idea who will be in government ten years from now, and what misuse they may make of the powers you blithely give away. And actually, in terms of bad treatment that has historically been meted out to the LGBT communities, in the United Kingdom the Conservative party is pretty well top of the pile. Isis are not the government here and never will be. The Conservatives are. Historically they have persecuted people like me, the current equalities minister has publicly stated that she wishes to roll back freedoms for transgender people. Do I trust the current government with extra power? I don't trust them with the amount of bloody power they already have. | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone Exactly, we should never have gone there. Every overseas military intervention we do, just makes things worse. But like it or not, we've already had our armies fucking over these countries (thank you to Mr Blair and most every PM after, and probably a few before as well), and now our government has absolutely no idea how to fix things. And no, I don't claim to know what to do either, we just shouldn't have gone there in the first place." According to ISIS own magazine If we stopped military operations over there, they would still have an axe to grind. While this ordering alone spells out what ISIS considers the most significant reasons for its actions, the group insists it is “important to understand” that “foreign policies” occupy only a secondary position. “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam,” the article says. | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone Exactly, we should never have gone there. Every overseas military intervention we do, just makes things worse. But like it or not, we've already had our armies fucking over these countries (thank you to Mr Blair and most every PM after, and probably a few before as well), and now our government has absolutely no idea how to fix things. And no, I don't claim to know what to do either, we just shouldn't have gone there in the first place. According to ISIS own magazine If we stopped military operations over there, they would still have an axe to grind. While this ordering alone spells out what ISIS considers the most significant reasons for its actions, the group insists it is “important to understand” that “foreign policies” occupy only a secondary position. “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam,” the article says. " ISIS have their own magazine | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone Exactly, we should never have gone there. Every overseas military intervention we do, just makes things worse. But like it or not, we've already had our armies fucking over these countries (thank you to Mr Blair and most every PM after, and probably a few before as well), and now our government has absolutely no idea how to fix things. And no, I don't claim to know what to do either, we just shouldn't have gone there in the first place. According to ISIS own magazine If we stopped military operations over there, they would still have an axe to grind. While this ordering alone spells out what ISIS considers the most significant reasons for its actions, the group insists it is “important to understand” that “foreign policies” occupy only a secondary position. “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam,” the article says. " Quite a chilling statement though sadly I suspect it's accurate. No wonder true peace loving Muslims distance themselves from Isis | |||
"... should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? what would you like to do to them mate ?" I will take them out if they are attractive females (especially if they aren't really a threat). | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone Exactly, we should never have gone there. Every overseas military intervention we do, just makes things worse. But like it or not, we've already had our armies fucking over these countries (thank you to Mr Blair and most every PM after, and probably a few before as well), and now our government has absolutely no idea how to fix things. And no, I don't claim to know what to do either, we just shouldn't have gone there in the first place. According to ISIS own magazine If we stopped military operations over there, they would still have an axe to grind. While this ordering alone spells out what ISIS considers the most significant reasons for its actions, the group insists it is “important to understand” that “foreign policies” occupy only a secondary position. “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam,” the article says. " not suprised one bit | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone Exactly, we should never have gone there. Every overseas military intervention we do, just makes things worse. But like it or not, we've already had our armies fucking over these countries (thank you to Mr Blair and most every PM after, and probably a few before as well), and now our government has absolutely no idea how to fix things. And no, I don't claim to know what to do either, we just shouldn't have gone there in the first place. According to ISIS own magazine If we stopped military operations over there, they would still have an axe to grind. While this ordering alone spells out what ISIS considers the most significant reasons for its actions, the group insists it is “important to understand” that “foreign policies” occupy only a secondary position. “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam,” the article says. ISIS have their own magazine "Isis magazine is a student public at Oxford university | |||
"Getting back to the OP... Given recent events at Liverpool I was thinking. MI5 claim there are a few thousand people of foreign origin on their terrorist watch list. To reduce this risk should we be more draconian and just deport anyone who they think is a risk? Though that pushes the problem to someone else. Should we round them up and “intern” them? Or should we use Mrs Thatcher’s doctrine and just quietly start “taking them out” for the good of the people? Much as I have no love for any terrorists, I do fear that taking the harder lines that you suggest would be a huge leap towards very bad things. The problem is: what are the criteria for someone to be judged as a risk to be eliminated? Is it to have been found guilty of serious crimes against the state in an open court of law? Is it to be a person that the security services have information against, but for reasons of "national interest" could not be prosecuted in open court? Is it sufficient to just be the wrong colour and religion? Can you end up being "taken out" just because you had an argument about the condition of your dividing fence with the next-door-neighbour who unbeknown to you works for MI5? Could it be that power would end up directly in the hands of government ministers, with no public oversight, giving them absolute authority to do exactly what they like to whomever they want? The deciding of what is "for the good of the people" is a very dangerous power to remove from public oversight, as that is exactly how dictatorships do arise. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". Who watches the watchmen? Would any of us trust the likes of Priti Patel, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson, or anyone else in the current cabinet with unconstrained power of life-and-death? It is very easy to say that "oh, the security services, the government, would never abuse that sort of power". Unfortunately history says otherwise. And even if it is judged that the current government would be safe hands to grant the power to (IMHO no!), then what about the next government inheriting that power? What about when a government decides that it's not foreigners that are the big danger, but those of the wrong religion, that only fully paid up church going christians can be trusted? (Some republicans in the USA are already saying this...). What if the danger is immoral behaviour? And swingers suddenly became the enemy? There are no easy answers, but "taking a harder line" seldom seems to work out well in history. Well that’s two of you who’ve picked up on the “what’s good for the people” . Thank you . That’s where I believe this style of government is taking us. I’m not advocating any of the choices I was trying to gauge where people are sitting on this in our little circle on fab. We have created a global terrorist monster with our military interference in the Middle East and now we have questions that we can’t answer. Are we learning ?? I don’t think so . We cut aid but buy more guns. Instead of exporting oil they they are now exporting their daily nightmare to us. Where’s the plan ??jackal mate your talking like it was a bed of roses there before the U.K. ever set foot there it’s a fucking basket case always as been always will there centuries behind the west it’s best left alone Exactly, we should never have gone there. Every overseas military intervention we do, just makes things worse. But like it or not, we've already had our armies fucking over these countries (thank you to Mr Blair and most every PM after, and probably a few before as well), and now our government has absolutely no idea how to fix things. And no, I don't claim to know what to do either, we just shouldn't have gone there in the first place. According to ISIS own magazine If we stopped military operations over there, they would still have an axe to grind. While this ordering alone spells out what ISIS considers the most significant reasons for its actions, the group insists it is “important to understand” that “foreign policies” occupy only a secondary position. “The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam,” the article says. ISIS have their own magazine "It's their propaganda publication, still an eye opener the last bit. | |||
| |||
| |||
