Suicide bomb gang guilty of plotting 'worst ever terror attack in Britain'

[Limehouse]

"We are talking about the prevention of extremism of any type. If anyone or any group conspire to create bombs or cultivate and spread germs or chemicals to harm others - then they are a danger."

Of course anyone who makes threats, or acts as though he intends to commit terrorist acts, is a matter of concern for the police and/or the psychiatric profession, let alone teachers. But :

"We are talking about the prevention of extremism of any type." And that's what worries me. Unless there is some clear suggestion that these people are going to commit illegal acts, their views are entirely a matter for themselves. If someone wants to be a Communist or a Nazi or a bin Laden supporter then it's his own decision unless there are grounds for thinking that violence will result. We don't want teachers to become the spy in the classroom, noting down little snippets of overheard conversations, subjecting pupils to interrogations and all the rest of it.

Let me make this absolutely clear, one more time, because you seem to have some difficulty grasping what I am describing.

Prevent training is intended to PREVENT acts of terrorism before they get to the stage where a person or group lets off a bomb or distributes germs or chemicals into a public place.

Acts of terrorism can be carried out by a number of people or groups acting individually or collectively for a veriety of purposes.

Extremist behaviour does not simply mean having strong views about a topic. It involves expressing an intention to harm others. It involves behaviour likely to lead to self harm or the harm of others.

We are not spies in the classroom. We only raise concern about behaviour likely to cause harm to others or themselves.

[Phil H]

As for equality : if you think that it is a senseless, kneejerk reaction to view someone who wanted to murder scores of people as being of less value than a decent person, then you are entitled to your own eccentric opinions.

The law regards everyone as equal.

I'd be interested in your views on the French Resistance in the 1940s too. Also of the plotters who attempted to kill Hitler in July 1944.

People's personal tastes are of no concern to anyone but themselves.

They would be of concern if they were racist both legally and personally.

But just for the record : I despise people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao tse Tung, Myra Hindley, Jack the Ripper and the kind of scum whose plot has just been foiled.

It is all subjective and depends on the angle of view. Note my questions above. In some cases one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Do you despise Nelson Mandela who spent long years imprisoned for terrorism?

If your Christian loving god prefers to see no difference between this murderous scum and, say, an Einstein or a nurse, then so much the worse for your Christian loving god.

Can I ask your views on nurses who neglect patients, administer euthanasia; kill - we have had examples of all in recent years?

Leaving aside the unpleasantness of your remarks, Christian teaching is the main impulse behind most of western culture and civilisation. Why have we moved away from capital punishmen? Because we have more away from the concept of the lynch mob to something more just. because we have recognised that mistakes can be made and the wrong people die. Why do we have a welfare state and a national health service - because underlying it is 2,000 years of Christian teaching and morality of loving your neighbour as yourself.

Hate appears to predominate in your thought, I'm sorry for you.

Phil

[Robert]

Save your pity for the victims of terrorist atrocities. Our discussion is finished.

[Robert]

Well Limehouse, I suppose you know what scheme it is you're operating, so we'll just have to leave it there. But please watch that slippery slope.

[Robert]

"And we won't find out if we were right until we are dead."

Maybe not even then.

[Phil H]

Our discussion is finished.

sadly, I don't think it ever really began. To have a meaningful discussion you have to have an open mind.

Phil

[Limehouse]

Well Limehouse, I suppose you know what scheme it is you're operating, so we'll just have to leave it there. But please watch that slippery slope.

No Robert, I am not operating any scheme. It is a scheme launched by the anti-terrorist squad. I was required to undergo the course as part of my safeguarding training which is mandatory for all teachers. I found the course helpful.

There is no slippery slope.

If you are shocked by the behaviour of the men who are the subject of this thread, I am surprised you are making such a song and dance about an initiative which is designed to help prevent this type of behaviour developing.

[brummie]

At the risk of being accused of being called intolerant,which I am definetly not. and part of the problem may I just point out that nowhere is more tolerant and welcoming than Birmingham. We have large populations of Sikhs.Hindus,Irish,Poles and Chinese all of whom are valued and important members of the community and contribute enormously to the fabric of Birmingham whilst maintaining their own cultural identity. Indeed the same applies to the vast majority of the local muslim community also,however there remains like it or not, a section of that community unable or perahps more accurately unwilling to accept that they live in a western society and that other people have different values.Before I get leapt on and labelled as some sort of far right fascist may I again point out that this is only a small minority of that community, whether they go as far as terroist activity or the gang of vigilantes in London harassing men they perceive to be gay and women they consider inappropriately dressed and telling them to leave ' a Muslim area' you can only welcome and embrace those people who want to be embraced.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The law regards everyone as equal.

Are you on a wind up?

The law clearly does not value everyone equally.

Those who do not conform to the nation's laws face punishment and have their privileges removed.

Then there is the market, which clearly does not value everyone equally, and as you and I shape the market it is a reflection of our desires.

Then there basic human interaction. Why are your friends your friends? They have proven themselves to be valuable.

People's personal tastes are of no concern to anyone but themselves.

They would be of concern if they were racist both legally and personally.

This is the problem with you and your type, Phil.

The views of a racist are of absolutely no concern. They're words man!

Don't like it, then don't listen - simple.

An argument is won on the strength of its points. Get all the arguments on the table and let the best one win. Don't try to shut 'em down. That's what fascists do. They make words a concern, and then they shut down the concern because it's not toeing the accepting wisdom. It must sound familiar, Phil, based on your posts?

[Phil H]

Well, I certainly don't think I'd ever be likely to count YOU as a friend, FM. At least, I don't know, maybe you like people throwing up over you. Rancid things always do that to me.

But moving on:

The law clearly does not value everyone equally.

So you do not think English law regards you and everyone as innocent until proven guilty? That prisoners have rights - recently underlines by the ECHR.

Those who do not conform to the nation's laws face punishment and have their privileges removed.

Perhaps you missed the recent discussions which are likely to see many prisoners having their right to vote returned?

Sure prisoners are shut away, punished etc, but once their sentence is complete the individuals concerned return to society. Equal (save in regard to some checks. In most cases the details of a judgement are removed from the books after a certain time.

Not sure we live in the same country.

Then there is the market

Then there may be the market, but I did not raise that.

Then there basic human interaction. Why are your friends your friends? They have proven themselves to be valuable.

No, my friends are my friends becauise of their qualities, not their usefulness. They make me laugh, we discuss interesting things, do things together. They are "valuable" to me, but not in any practical or self-interested way. Does unconditional love mean anything to you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil H

People's personal tastes are of no concern to anyone but themselves.

They would be of concern if they were racist both legally and personally.

This is the problem with you and your type, Phil.

What is my "type" FM? You don't know me, you jump to judgements about me from a few posts in a particular thread. You pontificate without knowledge or thought.

The views of a racist are of absolutely no concern. They're words man!

Sure, you view of me hurts only you, not me. hate has it's impact on the hater, not the hated - unless something physical happens or the subject allows them to.

But racial, sexually intolerant, gender conscious attitudes and views can insult those they are aimed it, incite others to action or to adopt such views, minimalise, marginalise and diminish the person or group they are aimed at. they are the basis of much inequality in the work place, why less woman reach top jobs, why fewer (as a proportion) ethnic minoties go into certain careers. Words can lead to harrassment, fear, to undermining a person or a groups self-confidence. At their worst, in the hands of a Goebbels for instance, words can influence a people and lead to segregation and genocide.

Words have consequences.

Don't like it, then don't listen - simple.

But you cannot always avoid listening - if something is proclaimed by the media or by enough individuals. Also, interested parties have to listen to know what the threats to them are.

An argument is won on the strength of its points. Get all the arguments on the table and let the best one win.

What happened to persuasion, in debate, to seeking to undertsnd the other person's or side's views, to seek compromise and mutuality, to see where things coincide? Irrelevant to you?

Don't try to shut 'em down. That's what fascists do.

no, fascists silence a view contrary to their own so that they can proclaim their own gospel. fascists dislike discussion, debate, argument.

A healthy society thrives on a sharing of views, but SOME do have to be controlled because of their misuse. Why? Because experience has shown that those views, wirlded by certain groups can do damage, serious damage to society. As we control access to firearms (in the UK) we restrict the ability to create fire by the use of a very few, highly flammable subjects. we have laws against certain types of sex (underage, rape etc) but that does not mean as a society we are not in favour of sex or seeking an ever expanding sexual freedom (though that is opposed by some).

They make words a concern, and then they shut down the concern because it's not toeing the accepting wisdom. It must sound familiar, Phil, based on your posts?

What on earth are you reading, FM? I have never suggested shutting down views - my whole thrust in this thread has been about seeking understanding, tolerance and openness - I want the community to discuss issues and reach a greater empathy while respecting diversity of culture and religion and enhancing freedom.

That you clearly do NOT understand my posts is well illustrated by my example of Scottish nationalism.

You (I suspect deliberately) twisted my words to say I was somehow undemocratic because i would resist and work against something I disagreed with.

Yet isn't that how laws are passed. If the opposition in Parliament determines that it does not agree with a proposed law, the opposition argues against it, and WORKS against it in the House. Yet it repects the law once it has been passed.

In our courts, trials are adversarial - exactly because that is the best way of testing the case and the evidence. Both prosecution and defence have to argue their case as hard as they can - and to do so they must first thoroughly understand the other side's case. Which was my point: to understand something you disagree with and argue against it, you first have to understand the basis of the other side's case or position.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

So you do not think English law regards you and everyone as innocent until proven guilty?

Obviously.

But this is not the same as saying the law values everyone equally.

The law places value on your contribution to the wider community.

The law values my contribution to the wider community as I adhere to the law.

The law does not value a criminal's contribution to the wider community and the law administers punishment accordingly.

That prisoners have rights - recently underlines by the ECHR.

The whole point of removing criminals' enfranchisement etc is to emphasise that criminals are devaluing the wider community with their actions and it follows thus they must not be afforded the same privileges as law abiding citizens.

It is a key part of law and order, punishment and rehabilitation.

Perhaps you missed the recent discussions which are likely to see many prisoners having their right to vote returned?

You keep going on about rights. Something that can be removed from you is not a 'right'. Enfranchisement is not a right. It's bestowed upon citizens by the wider community, as adminsitered by the law, providing citizens contribute to the wider community. The concept of 'a right' is just some abstract notion that doesn't really mean anything.

Sure prisoners are shut away, punished etc

I'm scratching my head wondering what exactly you're suggesting in the way of punishment?

Someone murders your wife and you want them to have the same opportunities as the rest of us....voting etc, understanding.

No, my friends are my friends becauise of their qualities, not their usefulness.

Exactly. 'Their qualities'. In order to guage their qualities you have compared them, or placed value upon them, with the competition. Clearly, their are qualities that you value and other qualities in which you place less store.

What is my "type" FM? You don't know me, you jump to judgements about me from a few posts in a particular thread. You pontificate without knowledge or thought.

I don't need to know you because I can read what you're typing. People are what people do, and I can see with my own eyes what you're typing.

What do you want me to do? Base an opinion of you on what you're not typing? That would be a touch odd.

But racial, sexually intolerant, gender conscious attitudes and views can insult those they are aimed it, incite others to action or to adopt such views, minimalise, marginalise and diminish the person or group they are aimed at.

Sticks and stones, mate.

What you do is a conscious choice. No one can marginalise you.

And, as has already been pointed out, where do we draw the line with 'offensive', and who acts as judge and jury?

It is open to such abuse and misapplication.

The absolute key point is that the definition of totalitariansim is censorship. Phil, you think because you're fighting a good cause you're not a totalitarian. You are. You want to censor people. You've simply convinced yourself that because it's a good cause then you're entitled to do it. Hitler thought he had a good cause, so did Stalin, and Pol Pot, the French Revolution. They all felt they were justified, just like you.

I personally don't agree with racist ideas, but it is absolutely vital for a healthy community that people can speak their mind. If knowledge is power, then shared knowledge is shared power. It is a cornerstone of Liberalism that competition creates progress, and that includes competition through ideas whether you like them or not. Let the best argument win the day.

At their worst, in the hands of a Goebbels for instance, words can influence a people and lead to segregation and genocide.

The poem: "they came for the Communists and no one spoke up...."they came for....and there was no one left to speak up", is aimed at people like you.

They were only Communists so non Communists didn't speak out because they didn't agree with them. They're only racists so who cares if they can't speak their mind without the regime carting them off. You see? Then what. Well, whatever the regime dicatates. We don't like people who don't agree with climate change - cart 'em off. And so on. The whole point of that poem is that in the event you do not fight for the freedoms of those whom you don't agree with then don't expect anyone to fight for your freedoms, and eventually the regime will grind us all down and no one will be able to speak freely without fear of reprisals.

You are doing exactly what the Nazis did. You are aiming to censor people because you don't like what they say. Who's next? Once these people are censored who will be next in line? Power corrupts. Lenin and Trotsky began with a 'good cause' but soon had to use coercion to implement it. Same with the French Revolution. And it snowballs from there, and before you know it anyone speaking out against the regime is carted off.

It is not about allowing the people to speak with whom you agree; it's about making sure everyone is afforded freedom of expression and speech without fear of being shut down because that is a slippery slope.

no, fascists silence a view contrary to their own so that they can proclaim their own gospel. fascists dislike discussion, debate, argument.

Which is exactly what you're doing, Phil. You want to shut down racism because you think you have a good cause. As said, the definition of totalitariansim is censorship, and power corrupts; believe you and me, if you and your type were running the country - you'd soon find new targets to shut down and cart off. Don't ever believe that you or I are any different to Lenin and Trotsky.

[Phil H]

FM - I think you might have missed most of the C20th.

The way in which prisoners are treated does not only reflect "punishment" these days - it also include rehabilitation, recompense, community service... Old ways simply did not work -prisoners re-offended.

And there is wider progress - in the C19th you could be transported or hung for stealing as little as a loaf. capital punishment was still in force - but society (actually around much of the world, began to perceive such approaches as counter-productive and inhumane. the process of evolution goes on.

You keep going on about rights. Something that can be removed from you is not a 'right'. Enfranchisement is not a right. The concept of 'a right' is just some abstract notion that doesn't really mean anything.

A moment's thought will reassure you that some rights become permanent - the right to vote for all adiults, as an example - was not recognised in Britain much before 1919. I think today it would be very difficult to deny any adult the right to vote in most democracies. I don't think there is anything abstract about that.

It's bestowed upon citizens by the wider community, as adminsitered by the law, providing citizens contribute to the wider community.

Clearly you have failed to recognise that "society" has now changed - power flows UPWARDS from the populace, rather than DOWNWARDS from an elite. Nothing today is "bestowed" in the sense you mean.

Originally Posted by Phil H

...my friends are my friends becauise of their qualities, not their usefulness.

FM: Exactly. 'Their qualities'. In order to guage their qualities you have compared them, or placed value upon them, with the competition. Clearly, their are qualities that you value and other qualities in which you place less store.

Nonsense and as usual with you twisting words to your own ends. The qualities I admire in friends reflect by enjoyment of their company. in your strange world you may (for all I know) have league tables of friends - I certainly do not. Friendship is an emotional thing - of the heart NOt the head.

The absolute key point is that the definition of totalitariansim is censorship. Phil, you think because you're fighting a good cause you're not a totalitarian. You are.

Funnily, I discussed what i term "liberal facism" a few posts back - so don't say i am unaware please. But your fdefinition of totalitarianism is puerile - it doesn't even begin to cut the mustard. It is about control, the state dictating to the populace; the person having less value than the group; at an extreme, utilitarianism run mad.

You want to censor people. You've simply convinced yourself that because it's a good cause then you're entitled to do it. Hitler thought he had a good cause, so did Stalin, and Pol Pot, the French Revolution. They all felt they were justified, just like you.

I am against censorrship - I am unsure whether your problem is ability to read or to understand what you read, FM - I simply underscored the reason why, in some areas, the expression of some extreme views has had to be restricted. Largely because they would be used by those militant enough (the BNP and their like) to cause trouble and even physical harm. Are you against ALL health and safety laws on the same basis?

I personally don't agree with racist ideas, but it is absolutely vital for a healthy community that people can speak their mind.

You can express views on any subject in the UK (slander and libel apart) - it is the tone and nature of the expression that is covered by the law. You can have and express views against homosexuality, immigration, ethnic diversity etc and no one will object. But a crude racism or sexism is banned and rightly so IMHO.

Same with the French Revolution.

The French Revolution can be said to cover the period, 1789 (perhaps earlier) to 1815 (the fall of napoleon its child). It includes the Terror, the Directory, the First Empire - which period are you referring to and specifically why?

You want to shut down racism because you think you have a good cause.

I do not object to laws that restrict racism or arguments that question diversity (gender or sexual or age) not because I think I have a good cause but because such views are inherently evil. In modern times they almost always reflect a majority bullying a minority (often one ill-equipped to defend itself). It is, as I have said the vocabulary, intellectual bancruptcy and banality and the hatred implicit in racism which I have no hesitation in saying we are better off for not hearing. As far as I am aware, the ARGUMENTS involved are not restricted so long as they are balanced, factually based and tolerant of counter-arguments. Shouting down of opponents, intimidation and twisting of the facts is disallowed and rightly so. The real arguments can still speak for themselves.

And I note that anti-Europeanism is not prohibited - we can all say how Xenophobic we are without any penalty so far as I am aware.

Now back to you to twist my words once more.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=Fleetwood Mac;255156]

No one can marginalise you.

QUOTE]


I didn't really want to add any more to this debate because I've been here before and it gets a bit tiresome but I just have to reply to that breathtaking statement with a few truths.

Being faced with a sign in a window stating 'No Dogs, no blacks, no Irish" is most definitely being marginalised.

Being required to give up your seat to a white person on a bus if you're black is most definitely being marginalised.

Having a burning tyre placed around your waist and being strung from a tree because you're black is most definitely being marginalised.

Arriving in the country that colonised your country and being told you cannot join the police force because you are Asian is most definitely being marginalised.

Not being allowed to vote because you are a woman is most definitely being marginalised.

Being criminalised for having sex with a consenting adult because they are the same gender as you is being marginalised.

Being gassed because you are a Jew or mentally handicapped or a gypsy or a homosexual is being marginalised.

For all those reasons above, we have equality laws and I am thankful for them.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It is about control, the state dictating to the populace; the person having less value than the group; at an extreme, utilitarianism run mad.

I simply underscored the reason why, in some areas, the expression of some extreme views has had to be restricted. Largely because they would be used by those militant enough (the BNP and their like) to cause trouble and even physical harm. But a crude racism or sexism is banned and rightly so IMHO.

Case closed.

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Limehouse;255174]

No one can marginalise you.

QUOTE]


I didn't really want to add any more to this debate because I've been here before and it gets a bit tiresome but I just have to reply to that breathtaking statement with a few truths.

Being faced with a sign in a window stating 'No Dogs, no blacks, no Irish" is most definitely being marginalised.

Being required to give up your seat to a white person on a bus if you're black is most definitely being marginalised.

Having a burning tyre placed around your waist and being strung from a tree because you're black is most definitely being marginalised.

Arriving in the country that colonised your country and being told you cannot join the police force because you are Asian is most definitely being marginalised.

Not being allowed to vote because you are a woman is most definitely being marginalised.

Being criminalised for having sex with a consenting adult because they are the same gender as you is being marginalised.

Being gassed because you are a Jew or mentally handicapped or a gypsy or a homosexual is being marginalised.

For all those reasons above, we have equality laws and I am thankful for them.

Which is all taken out of context, because I said words can't marginalise anyone - sticks and stones.

Clearly actions can. I would have thought that is a given.