Tarique Ghaffur, ex assistant commissioner of the met has called for the 3000 jihadis to be interned. Stone him the racist !


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mists.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What about suspects of other crimes? Do we keep them locked up too, without any real hard evidence?

Concentration camps in the UK, eh? Punishment without trial, without even a crime, collective punishment.

Who knew that it would be the far-right calling the loudest for Sharia law?

The article begins: "Thousands of radical extremists must be locked up in new internment camps to protect Britain from the unprecedented terror threat it faces, a Muslim former police chief declares today."

Unprecedented? Didn't we go like two decades where at least 50 people in the UK were being killed every year at the hands of terrorism?



Well, ****.

Hey, remember when leave voters wouldn't shut up about scaremongering? Where are they now?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Concentration camps in the UK, eh? Punishment without trial, without even a crime, collective punishment.

Who knew that it would be the far-right calling the loudest for Sharia law?

Tarrique Gaffauer is far right ?

claretandy wrote:Tarique Ghaffur, ex assistant commissioner of the met has called for the 3000 jihadis to be interned. Stone him the racist !


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mists.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But where do you draw the line? If internment works well in this case, what then happens if the police then start asking whether they can lock up others who they think have committed a crime, but haven't enough evidence?

Would you be happy to lock people up if the police think someone is guilty despite lack of evidence?

In regards to the comment about the number of people killed by the IRA, how many of them were there compared to the number of Jihadis?

If it was 50 people a year with x amount of terrorists over in Ireland but we've got 3k potential Jihadi living and planning over here and being protected by their family and friends what do you think the potential number of deaths could be if they all decided to go active?

Spijed wrote:But where do you draw the line? If internment works well in this case, what then happens if the police then start asking whether they can lock up others who they think have committed a crime, but haven't enough evidence?

Would you be happy to lock people up if the police think someone is guilty despite lack of evidence?

I think if you support this then you should be willing to be placed in an internment camp for the duration of their existence. If hold so little value in everyones freedom then you should be willing to gprove that you will give yours up to keep the rest of us safe.

So what do you say, ClaretAndy? Do you mind spending some time in our very own Auschwitz to make sure another Manchester doesn't happen again?

Oh just **** off Turtle.

No one is asking for us to gas/kill all the jihadis.

Auswitczh was primarily a detainment camp, a pre-built army barracks before the Nazi takeover. It was used for work and imprisonment much like the internment camp idea that this ex Met Chief is calling for.

It wasn't until the construction of Auswitchz II that the gassing etc really took off.

So yes, the comparison with this and Auswitchz is right.

Sidney1st wrote:Oh just **** off Turtle.

No one is asking for us to gas/kill all the jihadis.

It would help if he had actually read the article.

So the answer then is to let 3k jihadis wander around doing what they like?

Ok that's fine, lets do that instead, it's clearly the approved way forward on this forum.

Anything else that's suggested results in people being called Nazis because that's logical too.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I think if you support this then you should be willing to be placed in an internment camp for the duration of their existence. If hold so little value in everyones freedom then you should be willing to gprove that you will give yours up to keep the rest of us safe.

So what do you say, ClaretAndy? Do you mind spending some time in our very own Auschwitz to make sure another Manchester doesn't happen again?

I don't blow children up, i never will.

ClaretAndJew wrote:What about suspects of other crimes? Do we keep them locked up too, without any real hard evidence?

Are you referring to people who murder children an mass when you say other crimes?

You can't lock people away who are suspected of doing something, because that is when you cross the line. Where do we then stop?

Do we start to monitor all people who have histories of violent crimes who have been released from prison, in case they murder someone?

Do we lock up all schizophrenic people who have (some studies show) a higher chance of committing violent crimes?

Do we start to monitor everyone, who may use a phrase such as "I'm going to ******* kill the lot of them" in anger, to then lock them up, because they made a threat?

Damo wrote:Are you referring to people who murder children an mass when you say other crimes?

People that go on killing sprees like the Hungerford Massacre, Dunblaine, Carlisle taxi cab guy, Raol Moat.

Or even child killers, like the Wests etc.

Or serial killers like Dr Shipman and The Yorkshire Ripper.

Or anyone, anyone can commit violent crimes.

Damo wrote:Are you referring to people who murder children an mass when you say other crimes?

I'd say any serious crime - murder, rape, armed robbery etc. where the police don't have enough evidence to convict but they feel someone is guilty.

Forget those little girls that were ripped apart by that bomb.
It's the suspected jihadists who are the real victims here

ClaretAndJew wrote:People that go on killing sprees like the Hungerford Massacre, Dunblaine, Carlisle taxi cab guy, Raol Moat.

Or even child killers, like the Wests etc.

Or serial killers like Dr Shipman and The Yorkshire Ripper.

Or anyone, anyone can commit violent crimes.

Yes. Lock them up too.

If you've got proof that people have received training for terrorism why can't we intern them?

The article itself is actually sensible with its suggestions that Imams are involved in helping deal with the jihadis.
If such camps are created with the cooperation of the Muslim community where's the issue?

It's not going to lead to Nazi style concentration camps for starters.

If you lift 3k people who hate us and want to kill us, then tighten up border controls where is the issue?

ClaretAndJew wrote:People that go on killing sprees like the Hungerford Massacre, Dunblaine, Carlisle taxi cab guy, Raol Moat.

Or even child killers, like the Wests etc.

Or serial killers like Dr Shipman and The Yorkshire Ripper.

Or anyone, anyone can commit violent crimes.

All of those were individuals who'd clearly lost the plot.

They weren't part of a collective that wants to kill us, all of us.

Damo wrote:Yes. Lock them up too.

But that would mean innocent people like Colin Stagg would have been locked up for ever! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_Nickell" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The police can and will stitch people up on occasions (Hillsborough for example) so we must never get rid of trial by jury, even in the most serious cases!

Why do they have to be approved by Muslim imams? They hold no law over anything. Much like any other religious figurehead.

The article states the 1970's internment in Ireland led to even more bloodshed. Let's learn from that.

If these people are being monitored already by MI5, when they have enough evidence to arrest them, then they will. That's how the law works.

We can't monitor 3000 jihadis, it takes 30 people to monitor 1 jihadi 24 hours a day, we need to think outside the box.

claretandy wrote:I don't blow children up, i never will.

Neither have the people you want to lock up. All they've done wrong so far is hold opinions we don't like.

Why do they need to be approved by Imams?

If they were set up without any input from Muslim religious leaders then they will be deemed as an attack on Muslim society by both Muslims and people who like to get offended on their behalf.

If they're set up with guidance/approval and help from Imams then it shows a common goal from everyone to resolve the issue.

The alternative is we leave these people to wander around planning attacks or spouting their hatred for us and recruiting more people.

Bin Ont Turf wrote:It would help if he had actually read the article.

Of course I read it.

They are allowed to spout their hatred of us.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Of course I read it.

So going off on another tangent is part of the act this morning then?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Neither have the people you want to lock up. All they've done wrong so far is hold opinions we don't like.

Well we can start with those we know have been away training or fighting with terror groups.
You wont mind that will you?

Then we can move on to hate preachers.
Is that ok too?

After that we can look at people who're actively seeking information on bomb making and other terror related activities.
Is that going to be ok?

Whilst we're at it we can impose restrictions at the borders for people traveling to and from certain countries.
Would that be ok?

If its done with the assistance/approval of Imams who don't hate us then it will help things along.

ClaretAndJew wrote:They are allowed to spout their hatred of us.

And we're allowed to spout our hatred of them.

Except not any more if this clown gets his way. We'll be allowed to spout our hatred, but when they spout hatred back? Off they go to the concentration camps because that's justice.


For any of you who are interested in trying out a new career, taking this course is about to become very lucrative if claretandy and his merry band of fools get their way.
http://nacsc.co.uk/training/course-information/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ClaretAndJew wrote:They are allowed to spout their hatred of us.

Yes yes, freedom of speech and all that.

If they're encouraging people to take up arms against us we should either throw them out of the country or arrest them and lock them up for inciting violence.

If there is no action taken to address the situation and then a few vigilanties decide to intervene, it will end in chaos.

Nobody has a perfect solution but detaining and questioning a few of those suspected of wanting to carry out an act of terrorism may at least reduce the tension.

After all, most people don't bat an eyelid when a common criminal is brought in for questioning.

It will raise the indignation levels with Turtle though JohnMac.

Sidney1st wrote:Well we can start with those we know have been away training or fighting with terror groups.
You wont mind that will you?

That's already a crime. Put them on trial.

Then we can move on to hate preachers.
Is that ok too?

If they've committed crimes, yes.

After that we can look at people who're actively seeking information on bomb making and other terror related activities.
Is that going to be ok?

Lol. No. Not unless they've sought to purchase bombing making equipment. Or do you want to see these camps packed full of chemistry students, professors, or just curious amateur scientists?

Whilst we're at it we can impose restrictions at the borders for people traveling to and from certain countries.
Would that be ok?

Restrictions? Yes. Extra scruitiny? Of course. Complete ban? How would that stop the people we'd want it to stop? I doubt the borders of these countries are heavily guarded so they could just travel to another country and fly back from there. Funny how we got from Internment to a travel ban though, isn't it?

If its done with the assistance/approval of Imams who don't hate us then it will help things along.

Yeah, because the people who want to blow themselves up have always demonstrated a deep and profound respect for pro-western Imams.

Giving citizenship to people needs to be taken far more seriously and we need to revoke it more than we do currently. I have no idea how many of the 3000 jihadists who are here could be deported if we had not given them citizenship-even being born here does not confer automatic citizenship-so we need to review how we allow people citizenship.
Governments talk about us being at war- the last big one in 39-45 saw people interred on the Isle of Man and Isle of Wight with others sent to Canada for being here and German or Italian (until 1943). Things can get ridiculous. I once met a man of Italian parents who whilst in the British Army from 1940 had his parents interned on the IOM until the Italians changed sides. I think I am correct that some "innocent" johnny foreigners died when their ship was sunk by the Germans on route to Canada.

Imploding Turtle wrote:And we're allowed to spout our hatred of them.

Except not any more if this clown gets his way. We'll be allowed to spout our hatred, but when they spout hatred back? Off they go to the concentration camps because that's justice.


For any of you who are interested in trying out a new career, taking this course is about to become very lucrative if claretandy and his merry band of fools get their way.
http://nacsc.co.uk/training/course-information/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are we though ? Manchester police chief too bothered about "hate crime" on twitter than catching actual terrorists.

It isn't an issue if Jihadis don't like pro western Imams though, its about retaining the support of pro western Muslims and those who want to live here peacefully.

claretandy wrote:Are we though ? Manchester police chief too bothered about "hate crime" on twitter than catching actual terrorists.

No. They wanted to be catching actual terrorists, but when your police force is cut to the point that you're not getting any intel then it's pretty difficult to catch people when you don't know who they are or where they are.

Two years ago Theresa May was warned that her cuts would negatively affect the ability of Greater Manchester police, by a well-respected former Inspector for GMP. The less community policing you have the less intel you receive. the less intel you receive the less you can do about anything about the people you'd want the intel on. But hey, some money was saved.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... er-9299619" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She called it "scaremongering", though obviously not to his face.

So remember this the next time you complain that they're not out catching terrorists, because i'm certain this information will go in one ear and out the other.

Ah so now you want intelligence from the community but don't see why involving pro western Imams is worth doing?

Makes sense in your world I suppose...

Internment only succeeded in making things worse in Northern Ireland.

Police officers in Manchester have been told to be "sensitive" about arresting Muslims during ramadan. Is this for everyone or just muslims ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct ... on.ukcrime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Citing an 11 year old article does your agenda no good mate.

1 - Islamic terrorists cause death and destruction in an appalling act of terrorism.

2 - People say anybody with similar views should be either deported, or put out of harms way, until they can satisfy the authorities they no longer pose a threat. 

3 - When this is suggested as a solution to end the cycle of islamic terrorist atrocities, liberals say this is "frightening and could destroy a country." And after all, all the islamic terrorist did was "kill some people". Anybody suggesting such an idea are labelled nazis or fascists.

4 - Those Muslims who sympathised previously and were not dealt with, they then go on to carry out another islamic terrorist atrocity. 

5 -people say anybody with similar views should be either deported or put out of harms way, until they can satisfy the authorities concerns they no longer pose a threat. 

6 -When this is suggested as a solution to end the cycle of islamic terrorist atrocities, liberals say this is "frightening and could destroy a country." And after all, all the islamic terrorist did was "kill some people". Anybody suggesting such an idea are nazis or fascists.

7 - Those Muslims who sympathised previously and were not dealt with, then go on to carry out another islamic terrorist atrocity. 

8 -people say anybody with similar views should be either deported or put out of harms way, until they can satisfy the authorities concerns they no longer pose a threat. 

9 - When this is suggested as a solution to end the cycle of islamic terrorist atrocities, liberals say this is "frightening and could destroy a country." And after all, all the islamic terrorist did was "kill some people". 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3637029/m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... d-twitter/

People like Michael Vaughan are labelled fascists.

What a warped warped world some people live in

How do you quantify an extremist?

If someone hasn't broken the LAW, they don't need to be dealt with.

If someone is an actual terrorist, they will get dealt with.

Who wants to see me trigger Ringo again?

Bin Ont Turf wrote:So going off on another tangent is part of the act this morning then?

You're not suggesting that there may be some posters on here who have multiple identities are you!?

I've had my suspicions. The way that certain names "like" each other's comments, and argue on behalf of "each other" and work in tandem to make it look like there's 2 different people. Is subtly there if you know where to look.

Me and IT ?

Bin Ont Turf wrote:So going off on another tangent is part of the act this morning then?

On what tangent did i go that made you think I didn't read the article?

ClaretAndJew wrote:Me and IT ?

Me and my shadow!!!!

Its so very very obvious.

You've even got your response in early on another thread.

4 minutes apart for registration . Very sloppy.