I realise he has been silenced according to the media, but nowhere can I see the length of the sentence.
Does anybody know?
|
Maximum of 10 years according to the BBC.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37104446
|
Six months would be enough.
In Colchester military prison.
|
|
I wonder if putting him in prison could be a dangerous place for all of us when you consider the breakdown of prison population by religion. It seems many of the atrocities are by those with minor criminal records. Makes me wonder if they are the type to be more easily radicalised?
|
|
Might sound a bit harsh but... won't his immediate family have been Radicalised by him also? Being in such close company and with him as "head" of the household they must also be of the same mind as him, maybe they should be held under some sort of house arrest or strictly monitored. In fact so should the Families of anyone convicted of Terrorist offences whilst in this Country, they must have realised "something" had changed about the person, but kept it to themselves and let it develop, so are equally to blame.
|
Uh-huh. Tell you what, devonite, perhaps if someone's grandfather was say, oh I don't know, let's pick something at random, Jewish, maybe all the descendants should be, oh I don't know, killed. Just in case.
If anyone in the family breaks existing terror laws, sure, we deal with it. Otherwise they're innocent.
Dunno what sort of country you want, but it doesn't sound the same as the one I do.
|
Sorry! - must be in one of my "antagonistic" moods today! - so i'll take the dogs out an try an walk it off! ;-)
|
>>Six months would be enough. In Colchester military prison.
Or six weeks in: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-18808886
|
Choudary is an utter toerag. You can tell before he says a word just by looking at his beard and dumb nasty eyes.
It isn't illegal to be a toerag though. A lot of them about, some quite innocent in their various ways.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 19 Aug 16 at 18:53
|
He is an utter toerag as you say. But he is a Brit and we pride ourselves on free speech.
Of course he should be penalised, but its difficult to do and enforce. He is a prime example of the worthlessness of prison.
He should be compelled to complete onerous and lengthy community service. He just won't find it as awesome to be spouting the joys as he picks litter, scrubs graffiti and otherwise serves the community. I cannot imagine there is any glory in "cleaning for your cause". Not quite as glorious as campaigning for it.
Why should we pay for him to be in prison where he can lord it as some type of "celebrity"??
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 19 Aug 16 at 19:58
|
|
Correct as you sometimes are. Community servitude for maybe two years then the firing squad. Only seems fair.
|
The firing squad is indeed tempting.
But I reckon 20 years of community service is a better approach. Goodness knows the councils are always banging on about needing to save money, so a couple of thousand toerags of various brands ought to help.
To die for his cause would appeal to him. Well, perhaps not as much as living, but you see what I mean.
Bering in prison just makes him some kind of celebrity.
But nobody aspires to be an enforced community worker. Reference the thread mentioning the amount of litter about; two birds, one stone.
And to some worthless, easily lead, dipstick to whom dying for the cause seems worthwhile, I just don't think cleaning for the cause will be quite as tempting.
|
|
p.s. "sometimes" ?? How dare you!?
|
>> p.s. "sometimes" ?? How dare you!?
>>
Ok.. I thought I'd chance it! 0-:)
|
MD, I can visualise you overseeing a community service working party. Shackled crims, you on a horse with a rifle, wearing shades.
'' shake the bush boss''
Last edited by: legacylad on Fri 19 Aug 16 at 20:28
|
|
Right now LL I'm more concerned with your half openings. Just watch your flies. 0:-)
|
|
He deserves the maximum sentence IMHO and to prevent radicalising others he should be in solitary confinement.
|
|
Are his words that powerful? Cay you be "radicalised" if you'd don't want to be? What makes you susceptible to radicalisation? Just curious as to how the process works.
|
>>Cay you be "radicalised" if you'd don't want to be?
Oh, I suspect so. The potential to be radicalised (I'm not sure that's a real word) surely points to some shortcoming in your make up? That shortcoming is certain to override logical thought, and certainly will outweigh superficial desire.
Can you be radicalised if you're intelligent, secure and well-balanced? Then no, I suspect not.
There's a message there.
|
>>Can you be radicalised if you're intelligent, secure and well-balanced?
Isn't radicalisation just another form of hypnotism? - It is often said that the more intelligent you are the easier it is for you to be hypnotised.
|
He wants to be admired, respected, looked up to and to be a leader, even in death.
Mock him, laugh at him, belittle him, make him do menial work and otherwise devalue him in his own eyes. THAT is how to beat him.
|
seems like somebody else agrees!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37151089
(replied to Zippy's post)
Last edited by: devonite on Mon 22 Aug 16 at 10:39
|
But he is a Brit and we pride ourselves on free speech.
A pig born in a stable doesn't make it a horse.
|
|
He's a different species to you?
|
>> But he is a Brit and we pride ourselves on free speech.
>>
>> A pig born in a stable doesn't make it a horse.
[Sigh] It really shouldn't be this difficult. This rather illustrates the problem with regarding free speech as a right, everybody gets it, even those who really shouldn't.
Let me try and break it down for you;
- Is he, or is he not, a Brit??
- Do we, as Brits, pride ourselves on the right to free speech or not?
Of what relevance is your analogy, such as it is?
|
I'm pretty sure that intelligence and even education are not infallible antidotes to what we categorise as radicalisation. They certainly don't seem to inoculate people against religion.
As for free speech - if that means the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want, and to whomever you want - it doesn't exist and never has.
|
>> I'm pretty sure that intelligence and even education are not infallible antidotes to what we
>> categorise as radicalisation. They certainly don't seem to inoculate people against religion.
Which has always puzzled me. My wife is very well educated, but is very, very, Catholic. Its her belief, and I'm certainly not going to criticise it, but I don't really understand how the two go together.On the rare occasions I have asked, I get some 'stuff' about belief surpassing knowledge or something like that.
But if you take some views that one hears in here, often from well educated and intelligent people, that also makes no sense to me. Not because I disagree with them, which is neither here not there, but because they have no logic, no sense and no chance of being really true.
Rather leads me to believe that intelligence and education can go so far, but experience can outweigh both.
>> As for free speech - if that means the right to say whatever you want,
>> whenever you want, wherever you want, and to whomever you want - it doesn't exist
>> and never has.
Strictly, no. But to the extent that it does not unreasonably infringe on the rights of others, then I think it pretty much does exist in the UK.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 20 Aug 16 at 20:56
|
|
Someone on a radio program last year made the very good point that if philosophy was taught as a core subject from an early age it would do a lot to end radicalisation. Giving people the will to question what they are told rather than blindly accepting it at face value.
|
>Rather leads me to believe that intelligence and education can go so far, but experience can outweigh both.
Throughout my working life I have worked with some extremely intelligent and well educated people. Internationally acclaimed leaders in their own particular field. Mathematics, meteorology, physics and computer science.
I wouldn't leave a single one of them with a screwdriver unsupervised.
My aunt is a brilliant mathematician but has attempted suicide multiple times.
Intelligence does not equate to mental stability or common sense I'm afraid.
Last edited by: Kevin on Sun 21 Aug 16 at 00:06
|
>> I wouldn't leave a single one of them with a screwdriver unsupervised.
Not just in your field either. I've worked with similarly acclaimed lawyers both practising and academic. One could not be trusted to book his own trains and hotels correctly or even give consistent instructions to a staff member delegated to do it for him. Several could not fill in and correctly add up expense claims.
On the subject of radicalisation a key ingredient is some sort of grievance, whether real or imagined. Paranoia associated with mental instability is one hook, another might be failure to progress due lack of intelligence or insight into that lack.
Another is discrimination which is where 'Prevent' walks a tightrope and where mayors in France banning the burkini simply stoke the fire.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Aug 16 at 08:22
|
"Intelligence does not equate to mental stability or common sense I'm afraid."
Depends on how you define intelligence doesn't it? The mathematician may simply never have been taught much in the way of manual skills the same way as the carpenter has never been taught mathematics. They may well be equally intelligent
|
Seems to me that some people are just nasty and destructive, raised by nasty parents.
Intelligence doesn't have much to do with it, and there's nothing 'radical' about it either.
It's difficult to break a family tradition generations old, although some manage to. Inspiring teachers and agreeable acquaintances can have a beneficial effect.
|
Anjem Choudary - Slidingpillar
