to wonder how anyone could think Theresa May is the best person to solve the terrorist problem when she's just failed to do that for the last 7 years?

[ciderinsideher]

I simply don't understand how she can stand there after 3 terrorist attacks in short succession and say 'Trust me. I'll make sure there is no problem with terrorism' - when we can all see that she's been in power for 7 years, first as Home Secretary in charge of policing (cut the police force by 20,000 officers) and now as Prime Minister, and totally failed to do that?

Claiming Corbyn would be worse is a bit irrelevant - maybe he would be, maybe he wouldn't, but at least he'd fund the police properly.

I simply can't think of one single reason to believe that the Tories have a ruddy clue on security.

Newsthump puts it well:

newsthump.com/2017/06/05/uk-hasnt-done-enough-to-tackle-terrorism-says-woman-whose-job-it-was-to-tackle-terrorism/

MaybeNextWeek

I think you are confusing Islamists with Muslims. Not quite the same.

MaybeNextWeek - reread my post. Not sure who you think you're answering to, but the second part of your post makes no sense.

Re the first part, I hardly think you have to be a 'leftie' to think that it's insane to blame 'all' terrorism on Muslims, when some of it is clearly done by far-right white supremacists instead.

Do you struggle with the meaning of the word 'all'?

Or are you just an apologist for the far right generally?

There are plenty of current threads for those who wish to discuss their views on Diane Abbott in particular.

I'd like to focus on how we as a society can prevent terrorism and why May hasn't done more of that given it was, you know, her JOB?

'because it is only in recent days/weeks that we have been allowed to say Islamist extremists are usually always responsible' "That is certainly not true"

Well, ime it is. On mn people have said 'when there's a bomb why do the journalists presume its an Islamist'. As we've had 3 attacks in recent weeks , TM may well now have the support be able to introduce procedures that before people would have whined were islamophobia, for example not letting Islamists return from Syria or kicking hate speakers out, closing down radical mosques etc.

Mumofone1972 - I'm with you on the need to follow up obvious threats but as far as I know women in burkas have not carried out any terror attacks in the UK, so I'm not sure why we should be profiling them in particular?

On the other hand, I'm all for profiling the category of 'men who appear on national television saying they want to commit jihad' and am mystified as to why this hasn't already been common practice.

Surely after the Westminster attack, this should have been stepped up? How many attacks is Theresa May waiting for before she tells the security services to focus primarily on people who say they want to kill us?

"may well now have the support be able to introduce procedures that before people would have whined were islamophobia, for example not letting Islamists return from Syria or kicking hate speakers out, closing down radical mosques etc."

May has had the power to do that - why didn't she use it?

She's the Prime Minister - if she doesn't make the laws, who does?

She's been happy to ignore the situation and cut police numbers instead. How can you justify that?

Why do you keep saying "how many attacks is Theresa May waiting for before she tells the security services to focus primarily on people who say they want to kill us?" and ignoring the fact that TM does not and cannot tell the security services who to focus on?

'I think you are confusing Islamists with Muslims. Not quite the same'

No, I'm not. If radical mosques had been closed down and those 'known' to the security services have been aggressively monitored people say its only because they are Muslim. It isn't, its because they are Islamist extremists.

Now people are beginning to accept it isn't islamophobic to clamp down on Islamist extremistsTM will be able to do more.

Please can you point me to the legislation that gives the Prime Minister the power to close down a mosque (or other place of worship)? I know that "mosque closure orders" were proposed by the Conservatives in 2015, but I thought that the plan wasn't taken any further

@maybenextweek

No one believed it was Islamophobic to clamp down on Islamic extremists. In fact muslim communities were very vocal and were the first to ban the al muhajiroon from Mosques. It was the media that kept on repeatedly giving them a voice.

'On the other hand, I'm all for profiling the category of 'men who appear on national television saying they want to commit jihad' and am mystified as to why this hasn't already been common practice.'

because nutters like Corbyn and his followers think its all very nice and lovely to allow free speech and airing 'political views'. Which others have had to tolerate too. I think that will now change.

Now people are beginning to accept it isn't islamophobic to clamp down on Islamist extremistsTM will be able to do more.Now people are beginning to accept it isn't islamophobic to clamp down on Islamist extremistsTM will be able to do more.

Are they, really?
Because hate speech is not yet illegal. Or right wing hate speech would have to be punished as well. Is that what you're calling for?

Mosques themselves have been clamping down on extremists.

OlennasWimple -

Theresa May DOES tell the security services what to focus on. I included the link - go and read it.

She's just multiplied their workload by about 300 times, by telling them that instead of focusing on 20,000 odd bad people, they have to collect records for 60 million odd ordinary, normal people as well.

Unsurprisingly, this means they have rather less time to see what the 20,000 odd bad people are up to.

Sorry - missed a zero. Make that 3000 times.

No, you are wrong.

Operational priorities for the security services are set by the Joint Intelligence Committee, which is comprised of senior officials from a range of security organisations, and is subject to external scrutiny. It's not like Spooks or James Bond, where ministers pick up the phone and say that they want "Mr X taken out at any cost"

Did you read that link properly? It was clear to me that the way that the new legislation will work is that tech companies have to store the data so that if the security services need to access it in the future it is there. Not that the security services are amassing everyone's computer records

'Because hate speech is not yet illegal. Or right wing hate speech would have to be punished as well. Is that what you're calling for?Mosques themselves have been clamping down on extremists'

Yes, that is what I'm 'calling for'.

I'm aware the Muslim community has been clamping down on extremism, I thought the question was why hasn't TM done more?

well said Olennas

how anyone could think Theresa May is the best person to solve the terrorist problem when she's just failed to do that for the last 7 years?

The alternative on offer is - drum roll - Diane Abbot.

Rock and a bloody hard place basically.

(still going to vote Lab though)

The alternative on offer is - drum roll - Diane Abbot.

I wasn't aware DA was running for Prime Minister.

Olennas -

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/extreme-surveillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper

"the legislation sets out clearly for the first time the surveillance powers available to the intelligence services and the police. It legalises hacking by the security agencies into computers and mobile phones and allows them access to masses of stored personal data, even if the person under scrutiny is not suspected of any wrongdoing."

Clearly, hacking into all that data, including innocent people's data, is going to take time and resources.

And that's before you consider Snowden's words: “The UK has just legalised the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy. It goes further than many autocracies.”

Now you may be happy living in a dictatorship. But strangely enough, not all of us think it's so great an idea. East Germany was never really my fantasy of what I wanted the UK to become.

'Now you may be happy living in a dictatorship. But strangely enough, not all of us think it's so great an idea. East Germany was never really my fantasy of what I wanted the UK to become.'

And there you go. Why TM hasn't been able to do more when people whine and use melodramatic terms like 'living in a dictatorship' when referring to online monitoring and surveillance.

because nutters like Corbyn and his followers think its all very nice and lovely to allow free speech and airing 'political views'.

Were you also this vocal in relation to the BNP?

The fight against terrorism is more than controlling speech.
You can stamp down on public speech, but you can't control what people say to eachother privately. So, clamping down on hate preachers would do nothing but drive them underground.

I have never said that I think the new surveillance powers are a good thing. I'm simply making the point that you have misunderstood how they work.

For example, it would mean that in the horrific event of another attack like we have recently seen, the security forces would be able to request access to the data of the perpetrators and others who they have evidence to suspect have been involved in the planning of the attacks. Of course they will look at "innocent people's data", in the same way that the police arrest innocent people, social services investigate innocent people, insurance companies investigate claims made by innocent people. I'm not saying that only those with something to hide have anything to be concerned about.

But you seem to be under the misapprehension that the security services are suddenly going to be trawling through everyone's internet history regardless of their believed threat to national security. That is simply not the case.

MaybeNextWeek -

Did you ever to go to East Germany under Communism?

I did. I had family there and visited several times. The Stasi's reach was far, far less than these laws allow.

If that doesn't frighten you, you're either lying, unbelievably gullible or really, really stupid.

'Were you also this vocal in relation to the BNP?The fight against terrorism is more than controlling speech. '

Of course I would be

Yes it is more than controlling speech. Obviously. It is where ideology and hate stems from though, so to control that would be useful and not something we should accept as free speech and political opinions.