Paphos Life

Far too regularly we read of politicians and others stating “their thoughts are with the victims of the deceased and their thanks for the wonderful work of the support services”. I no longer want to read this as I believe that the time has come to change an entrenched attitude and forcefully implement effective preventative measures that work.

Reading that MI5 or the Police has 50 or 500 or 5000 persons who they suspect of being involved in terrorist activity is no longer acceptable. Action must be taken to deal with anyone on this list or any future person on this list rapidly and effectively. This means ensuring that they are unable to carry out any form of terrorism directly or by influencing others.

To this end I propose that there need be immediate enhancement to the legal process under the heading of Terrorism. This will short circuit the need for the CPS to consider the likelihood of a successful prosecution, reduce the delays with collecting excessive levels of evidence and become an immediate streamlined process.

Where MI5 or the Police or any other competent body seen fit for this purpose, has evidence that a person may be involved in terrorism, this evidence will be immediately presented to one of a panel of judges who are required to be available 24/7 for this purpose and who will agree or deny action against the individual. Denial of action will only be considered where the evidence presented is grossly inadequate. There will be no consideration of the race or religion of the persons concerned. Once action is agreed it will be applied immediately as follows:

1. If the person concerned is not a British Citizen they and their family will be deported to the country of their passport. They will have no further right of entry into the UK.

2. If the person concerned is a British Citizen their passport and driving licence will be confiscated and they will be dealt with according to the level of concern raised.

a) Highest risk persons - Imprisonment and charged with offence

b) Medium Risk persons including those considered to be at risk of radicalisation - Detention

c) Low Risk persons - Tagging and continuous automated and manual monitoring, requirement to report to police weekly, activities limited, meeting any other person on list to immediately raise their risk level.

In all categories persons will have the right to consult with their solicitor at their expense in order to establish their innocence which will have to be demonstrated and proven in court. In the event of successful proof they will be entitled to compensation and costs. No social benefits will be awarded to the families of these persons as a result of any action taken. All persons will have the right to undertake to leave the UK and surrender their passport permanently and forego any future entry to the UK.

There will be those who are concerned with the Human Rights of the persons affected. My view is the Human Rights must be prioritised and I would give priority to those who may be killed or injured by terrorist activity.

Pete

Pete and Sylvi

My sentiments exactly and suggested elsewhere on this forum. There are in fact measures already in place and at the disposal of the authorities to enact some of what you suggest and have in some instances but rare due to the intervention of the breach of some right or other. Time for all parties in Parliament to give effect to such measures sooner rather than later. Daesh is at war with the UK just as it is with the whole of the Western World, its culture,law enforcement and way of life. Human Rights are not even considered by that organisation or others who support it. The first duty of the Government (any of the Governments of the West) is the Defence of its Citizens so just get on with it because another dastardly act is just waiting around the corner - it is their modus operandi. The phrase "enough is enough" has been stated so now follow it through please.

Rita

Totally agree 100%!

This scum have to be removed from our homeland., BEFORE they wreck their worst, rather than after, or after they have engendered a protracted and horrendously expensive (to the UK taxpayer of course) legal procedure to both stay in the UK and keep the humungous benefits which they are drawing for their myriad wives and children.

To this end I wholly support Theresa Mays proposal to redefine the human rights legislature to prevent just this stupidity constantly recurring.

A few practical points:

1. Where would these people be detained?
2. Who would carry out the arrests?
3. Who would pay for it all? The Great British Public aren't fond of tax increase, but you would surely need them if you want to expand the prison services and police force.
4. Is there any evidence that it would work? Similar techniques didn't work in NI, according to what I read. I am happy to be corrected on that point though.

To be honest though, I find the whole thing very confusing. Not your post, I mean the existing system. On the one hand, it seems that warnings to police are being ignored, but on the other hand, I know somebody who works "in the system" and has witnessed how some people are deported on the flimsiest of reasons. It is as if parts of the system are too bad, and parts too good.

With regards to benefits, that is entirely the UK's own fault. Other countries are no where near as generous as the UK.

That hate preaching.......would not mind living in the cess pit islamic state .....piece of filth anjem choudray is in prison for inciting people to join the aforementioned islamic state. His property .....I am so sorry, I mean his wife.....rubana akhtar, is continuing his good works whilst the tax payer pays to keep him in prison. My question then, is why is this woman....I assume woman because I have only seen pictures of a tall pillar box..... why is this woman allowed to continue spouting the hatred and filth good old andy was spouting?
I detest these people with a passion and fail totally....totally... to understand why there is no-one in charge who has the cojones to throw these hate preaching anti British scum of the earth out of our country. No trial, no appeals, no despicable yooman rytes retards putting their five pennorth in while charging the tax payer, just chuck the hate mongers and their followers on a plane to whichever islamic paradise on earth they want to go to. And absolutely without any doubt never ever ever let them back in. BTW... all names etc are small case because these people do not deserve to be capitalized.

All sounds good and I agree about exiling the Scum, but I watched a program recently on UK immigration...basically they go round to curry shops etc, where they have been tipped off that there's illegal workers etc, immigration gets there, if they cant find their passports they stay and told to report to the Police station weekly. not many do and they disappears again, if they have had kids in the UK they stay...I know they are not terrorists, but it all sounds good on paper, but do I think the Politicians will find the Balls, and funding to do any of the OP suggestions...not in a million years.

Some very good posts on this thread too!

I think I've made my thoughts on this known in other threads.

To wit, we need to recognise the elephant in the room which is Islam.

While we continue to appease muslims, adapting our ways and lifestyles to theirs they will grow in strength and they will demand ever more. The enthusiasm of politicians to encourage multiculturalism has created ghettos and in some cases no-go zones where extremism is allowed to breed.

It will be painful, and it will be unpopular with the liberal lefties but until we grasp the nettle and start restricting the freedoms of those that hate us, terrorist atrocities will continue.

A word on 'moderate muslims'. I'm sure there are millions of them - we have very good muslim friends in the UK who are completely integrated into British society.

But I wonder what happens to them as the numbers increase? Will pressure be put on them for the daughter to dress more moderately, or the son to spend more time at the mosque or the father to stop having a pint with his mates after work...?

WHL

Agree with your points - it is ludicrous that these people are let go. I've also watched that Border Force programme where they spend hours at the airport determining that someone off a plane has no right to entry (because they obviously aren't students, etc.) and then let them go on the promise that they will return later...

I'm afraid the only answer is to lock them up. Can't prove your identity because you have 'lost' your passport or can't otherwise prove your identity? Try some time in choky to see if it helps you remember - or you perhaps decide to return to your own country.

Dominic

Reference the costs. The country is already spending billions on anti-islamisation programmes and security to prevent the threat of islamic terrorism. These costs will merely increase if no other course of action is taken.

cyprusgrump wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:42 am Some very good posts on this thread too!

I think I've made my thoughts on this known in other threads.

To wit, we need to recognise the elephant in the room which is Islam.

While we continue to appease muslims, adapting our ways and lifestyles to theirs they will grow in strength and they will demand ever more. The enthusiasm of politicians to encourage multiculturalism has created ghettos and in some cases no-go zones where extremism is allowed to breed.

It will be painful, and it will be unpopular with the liberal lefties but until we grasp the nettle and start restricting the freedoms of those that hate us, terrorist atrocities will continue.

A word on 'moderate muslims'. I'm sure there are millions of them - we have very good muslim friends in the UK who are completely integrated into British society.

But I wonder what happens to them as the numbers increase? Will pressure be put on them for the daughter to dress more moderately, or the son to spend more time at the mosque or the father to stop having a pint with his mates after work...?

WHL

Agree with your points - it is ludicrous that these people are let go. I've also watched that Border Force programme where they spend hours at the airport determining that someone off a plane has no right to entry (because they obviously aren't students, etc.) and then let them go on the promise that they will return later...

I'm afraid the only answer is to lock them up. Can't prove your identity because you have 'lost' your passport or can't otherwise prove your identity? Try some time in choky to see if it helps you remember - or you perhaps decide to return to your own country.

Dominic

Reference the costs. The country is already spending billions on anti-islamisation programmes and security to prevent the threat of islamic terrorism. These costs will merely increase if no other course of action is taken.

Your right they should lock them up....but you and I both know that wont happen.

WHL wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:53 am Your right they should lock them up....but you and I both know that wont happen.

I sense a change in mood...

Sure, there are still plenty that sympathise with them but there is I believe an increasing anger with the unacceptable status quo.

I hope so anyway.

Im sorry its the cynic in me, lots of promises, lack of action, never mind a pop concert ...a minutes silence and the now trendy lighting up Big Ben/Eiffle tower etc will have to do.

Dominic wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:51 pm A few practical points:

1. Where would these people be detained?
2. Who would carry out the arrests?
3. Who would pay for it all? The Great British Public aren't fond of tax increase, but you would surely need them if you want to expand the prison services and police force.
4. Is there any evidence that it would work? Similar techniques didn't work in NI, according to what I read. I am happy to be corrected on that point though.

To be honest though, I find the whole thing very confusing. Not your post, I mean the existing system. On the one hand, it seems that warnings to police are being ignored, but on the other hand, I know somebody who works "in the system" and has witnessed how some people are deported on the flimsiest of reasons. It is as if parts of the system are too bad, and parts too good.

With regards to benefits, that is entirely the UK's own fault. Other countries are no where near as generous as the UK.

Firstly Dominic, I would point out that my original post outline a skeleton on which a practical solution can be developed and put in place very quickly. It does not provide all the answers. To deal with your questions:

1. Where I have suggested detention the location is not defined. It could be a purpose built camp or other secure premises of which I am sure the government has many tucked away. I don't honestly care at this stage as I think the priority is to reduce terrorism risk.
2. The Police. Who else might you think?
3. It is one of the responsibilities of government to make the population secure, therefore the cost would be born by government and therefore the taxpayer. This is not a net cost as the cost of terrorist attacks, bombings, stabbings etc is enormous as is the current situation of attempting to prosecute any suspect. The hidden Business costs of extra private security, insurances for businesses, premises damage, stolen vehicles and so on is one that is already passed onto the public through the cost of products. So although my skeleton suggestion is not costed I hardly see why tax increases are required.
4. I can offer no evidence to say this suggestion would work. I can offer evidence to say that without this suggestion further atrocities will take place and there will be more death, pain and suffering. So to me doing nothing is not an option. My approach does not beg complicity with existing processes and systems but provides a stand-alone procedure for this particular set of circumstances. As such it could be implemented very quickly bypassing months of committee meetings, papers, permissions and legal gumpf that burdens the law and prevents justice so often.

I note you find the whole thing confusing. That is because the current process in the UK consists of sticking plaster patches based on existing legislation, compliance with existing legislation and time wasting and costly legal debate involving existing legislation. A clean sheet approach can bypass this and contain its own rules including those that put it outside the scope of existing legislation. Just as governments do in wartime.

Your point about benefits is quite right but lets be more specific. The current benefits system was massively enhanced by Blair's government resulting in the ridiculous level of benefits and the amount of benefit fraud that occurs today. This is a type of consequence of socialist governments in the UK who foolishly believe and try to implement fairness for all. Stir in with that a large helping of Political Correctness and it's not hard to understand why Labour Governments bathe in equality demands. Unfortunately as we see time and time again, their form of equality is not based on excellence but is based on mediocrity. But that's a different soap box!

Pete

You would need more police, and any detention centre would have to staffed too. This would all cost a lot of money, despite what Diane Abbot might think.

I am not saying it shouldn't be done, but until the British Public are persuaded that they will have to pay for it, I can't see it happening.

So the next question is: how many more attacks will it takes before the British Public are happy with funding it?

Dominic wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:22 pm You would need more police, and any detention centre would have to staffed too. This would all cost a lot of money, despite what Diane Abbot might think.

I am not saying it shouldn't be done, but until the British Public are persuaded that they will have to pay for it, I can't see it happening.

So the next question is: how many more attacks will it takes before the British Public are happy with funding it?

As i said in my earlier post...

Reference the costs. The country is already spending billions on anti-islamisation programmes and security to prevent the threat of islamic terrorism. These costs will merely increase if no other course of action is taken.

Dominic

You say: "I know somebody who works "in the system" and has witnessed how some people are deported on the flimsiest of reasons."

I worked for over 40 years in the capacity of legal advisor (one of them) to HM Government and had a 70% immigration caseload. I think your contact is somewhat mistaken. Before anyone is deported it is necessary to issue a "Notice of Intention to Deport" (this, of course can be challenged through the courts) and before the actual deportation can take place it is necessary for the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to sign the Deportation Order itself personally. Let me just say during all of those 40 years I have never known a Home Secretary just willy nilly sign such an order. All of the case file is put before him/her and a complete explanation given regarding the case before such a signature can be obtained. It is not an Immigration Officer who makes such a decision.

Anyone who is in the UK without authority is subject to deportation if they do not leave voluntarily when served with the Notice of Intent - there may well be times when someone is deported for what on the face of it seems harsh but either the rules apply or they dont. It is safe to say should those reasons be challenged the courts are pretty keen to know all the circumstances and if not satisfied send it back for reconsideration.

Rita

WHL wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:25 am All sounds good and I agree about exiling the Scum, but I watched a program recently on UK immigration...basically they go round to curry shops etc, where they have been tipped off that there's illegal workers etc, immigration gets there, if they cant find their passports they stay and told to report to the Police station weekly. not many do and they disappears again, if they have had kids in the UK they stay...I know they are not terrorists, but it all sounds good on paper, but do I think the Politicians will find the Balls, and funding to do any of the OP suggestions...not in a million years.

To be honest WHL, I am not that worried about immigrants. I am not worried about the vast majority of Muslims who live and work and pay their taxes in the UK like the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Chinese, et al. It is the likes of choudray that sticks in my throat. There is not ONE person in government or opposition that will do anything to remove the choudrays of this world. Besides, if the immigrants were expelled, I can't make a curry to save my life.
I really fear for the UK some days. And good on the police to shoot to kill the vermin who terror attack. Of course, they will be suspended until they are cleared of any wrong doing, (ie yooman rytes ar**holes trying it on) which is a huge part of the problem in my opinion.
Oh well...........

Mate I didnt say I want all the immigrants deported, what I was trying to put across, was how difficult it is for the Police to enforce this...and if its this difficult trying to deport a curry worker, what chance have they got, as your saying the case of someone like( Chouldry) when the Politicians dont have the will/guts to pass laws to make this happen.

WHL: Which is exactly why I would see the actions regarding Terrorism taken into their own procedures away from the existing legal can of worms.

Dominic: I can't understand why you think the British people need to be happy funding it. Are they happy paying exorbitant road tax every time they drive over a pothole? Are they happy paying an Insurance Tax on their premiums knowing the taxes the insurance company are liable for are already part of their premium? I could go on but the ultimate question is were they ever asked if they want to pay these taxes? Of course not because they elected a government to deal with these matters on their behalf.

Pete

But they don't tend to elect governments who put up taxes. That is my entire point. All this rhetoric is fine, but until the public accept that they WILL have to pay for it, then it is meaningless.

Dominic wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:30 pm But they don't tend to elect governments who put up taxes. That is my entire point. All this rhetoric is fine, but until the public accept that they WILL have to pay for it, then it is meaningless.

*KOFF*

cyprusgrump wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:42 am Reference the costs. The country is already spending billions on anti-islamisation programmes and security to prevent the threat of islamic terrorism. These costs will merely increase if no other course of action is taken.

They are already paying higher taxes for it... and the results are London and Manchester.

We are suggesting that it might be better to spend that money in more effective ways.

Which tax increases were these then?