Parts of the UK are a bit messy and run down - there, I've said it. Will these be enough to get me referred to the Prevent programme for vilfying the UK?

[cakeorwine]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/former-counter-terrorism-police-chief-attacks-rishi-sunaks-prevent-plans

"The former chancellor announced measures to beef up the Prevent programme on Tuesday night, as part of a bid to boost his flagging campaign to succeed Boris Johnson as the next prime minister.
These would lead to more people being referred to Prevent by widening the definition of “extremism” to include those who “vilify” Britain, with Sunak pledging to focus on “rooting out those who are vocal in their hatred of our country”.
But former counter-terrorism chief Sir Peter Fahy, who was also chief constable of Greater Manchester police, questioned the precise meaning of “vilification”.
He said: “The widening of Prevent could damage its credibility and reputation. It makes it more about people’s thoughts and opinions.
Reforming the Prevent strategy won’t work. It must be abolished
Ilyas Nagdee
Read more
“It is straying into thought crimes and political opinions.”"

I could go further:

The Monarchy is an outdated system and needs reforming or getting rid of.
FPTP is unfair
The House of Lords needs scrapping
Some countries have a better form of devolved Government
The public transport system in this country falls behind some other countries
Brexit was a bad idea and we are an insulated nation

This is not about debating these subjects - but a question behind what vilifying means and when does an opinion become an extreme opinion that needs referring to Prevent

So feel free to add your opinions and get ready to pack your bags to the re-education camps

Ha! We are all doomed @MrsTerryPratchett

I fucking hate Battenburg cake and no amount of Prevent reeducation is going to change that.

Well this is going to be a nightmare for those of us working in safeguarding/education.
Also, I'm definitely getting jailed. 😂

I remember The Secret Millionaire on C4 used to be a great insight into broken Britain, but it became too known and knowing, as per a lot of what used to actually be Reality TV.

Just watch what you say in the staffroom.

Will your colleagues report you?

@FuckeryOmbudsman does incitement to murder MPs, include twitting images of the Prime Minister being stabbed?

I'm asking for a friend.

Yours

Lizzy Margaret T

does incitement to murder MPs, include twitting images of the Prime Minister being stabbed?

Depends on context - actual beheadings and the like are usually taken down

This isn’t targeting people criticising government policy. It’s about people calling for violence and lawbreaking because they despise the place where they live and want to reshape it outside the democratic process. I can’t see how that’s not quite extreme.

That's what they say now though. Very easily can be a slippery slope and tool to get rid of unwanted characters. And more.

@Bubblebubblebah

Sure but you could say that about most laws. We already have laws against hate speech and incitement to violence, and we already have means of identifying those people considered to be a threat because they skirt a fine line around those things. This is no different. There’s no place for violent and extremist rhetoric. I’m okay with those people being on a list.

I come from an authoritarian country where the same party has been in power for 63 years and wins every single election but you know what- you can complain about the country?

I moved to the UK for democracy and freedom and I get this.

I bet the Suffragettes would have been on the list.

Prevent covers this already/actual law breaking would be illegal anyway? I don’t see how this extends Prevent at all! If you’re at the point of being actively and noticeably interested in terrorism and extremism you should be getting referred anyway!

Get what?

Its mouthy rhetoric from a wannabe, who may well end up being the 'be' but essentially its the sort of thing politicians say.

I was tongue in cheek in my post above, we have very open press in this country for criticising those in power, even if the most popular mainstream press appear to be fairly right wing

Haven't seen any 'hops' from that to ridiculous things so I don't know why people suddenly think there would be from this

you should pop over the the FWR board…lots of ‘hops’ there

Thats what i thought eatingapple

its not like the people who do this sort of thing aren’t on a list already

‘Prevent covers this already/actual law breaking would be illegal anyway? I don’t see how this extends Prevent at all! If you’re at the point of being actively and noticeably interested in terrorism and extremism you should be getting referred anyway!’

What is the change, then? Anyway, I don’t know if Prevent works or not. I just think we shouldn’t be more concerned about violent extremists than we are about public safety.

Underdog candidate nicks uses Labour initiative for publicity.

And it goes down badly - just showing that Tories will be Tories, and sneer at anything Labour introduced. It's like a reflex

Are you saying @FuckeryOmbudsman stabbing ok, beheadings not so much?

Yup. Hence the "what are they plotting😑" in my head. My proof of residency is fully online with no physical proof and I also consider that something done on purpose and keep waiting when something comes.... We already had this "don't worry, you don't need proof really... Well actually!"... I just don't trust them with anything what can be aimed mainly at foreign/second gen/not white people.

Are you saying that anyone who thinks that laws/rules like this can be misused by some authorities is a tory?

or have some tories in the media complained about it?

it sounds like the first one …but i must have misunderstood cos the first one is a really silly thing to say

What happens if I keep my US Green Card for fifteen years after returning permanantly to the "beacon of freedom, tolerance, and diversity" (despite that document's becoming invalid after one year living full-time outside of the USA unless I am on US government or corporate business) and then have my flunkies claim I needed it because I was having "important conversations" with US officials?

Just curious.

“Vilify is defined as to make a comment about a person that makes him look bad. An example of to vilify is to tell a story about a man which makes him sound like a thief.”
That’s worrying - what if the story is true? (Jimmy Savile springs to mind - Johnny Rotten was vilified for telling the truth!)

And these people are already covered by existing Prevent guidelines

People are referred to Prevent because they are at risk of radicalisation or terrorism, regardless of motivation. Something like a third of referrals are people with mixed/unknown/unstable ideologies. So anyone who was thinking about bombing parliament because 'they hate the UK' would already be eligible.

So as a policy proposal it's meaningless, the real intention is to pressure people into self-censorship, and to intimidate campaigns to (for example) raise awareness of historical atrocities and the legacies of empire.

I’d take being referred by this shitshow of a government as a badge of honour.