back to article British prime minister slams Facebook and pals for votes

British prime minister Theresa May used Facebook, Google and social media companies as a vote-winning punch bag on Friday, slamming them for not doing enough to limit extremist content online. In a speech that was widely reported 24 hours before she gave it, thanks to pre-briefings from her office, May told the G7 leaders …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does she really believe radicalisation starts online?

    It does not, it starts in the Mosque/School or through acquaintances when like minded people share ideologies based on foreign policy decisions of ours and the American government.

    I'm not just saying this because of Corbyns speech yesterday, I've been saying it for years along with a lot of intellectual thinkers however it always falls on deaf ears and the press have always attacked the notion without ever giving a reason for terrorist actions other than they are "extremists"

    Asking social media to do the job you should be doing before they move to social media is like locking the stable gate once the horse has bolted.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They're American neocon foreign policy decisions. We just follow along like a good little lapdog.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      It does not, it starts in the Mosque/School

      And at home and in the family. It has always been a distinctly family affair - usually brothers and siblings, but generation to generation as well.

      However, blaming the family is traditionally unacceptable for the political spectrum right of Attila The Hun. Family is sacrosanct and shall not be blamed. Much easier to blame social media instead.

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        ^^^^^^ This... exactly and spot on. Parents (at least in the US) have dumped much responsibility for raising kids on the baby sitters and the schools. The schools have got away from teaching critical thinking and values due to the agendas of the teachers union. Then there's all the social programs that by edict, the schools must do.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          What schools should be teaching

          It is a good thing schools have "got away from" teaching values. That's something that should be up to the parents, or people the parents choose. It is unfortunate that some people want values taught in schools - because they only want schools to teach the "values" they subscribe to! Parents with certain religious beliefs don't want their kids to be taught about birth control, other parents don't want their kids to be taught abstinence is the only choice.

          Some parents want kids to be taught it is OK if they are gay, others don't want the concept even mentioned and would send their kids away to be "re-educated" Pence-style if are. Schools can try to manage with permission slips and multiple classes, but there will always be something new around the corner to add another 'category' of kids that have to be treated differently to accede to their parent's wishes, so it is any wonder administrators would prefer to just wash their hands of the whole thing?

          It would be nice if schools taught better critical thinking skills, too many people are too easily fooled by "fake news" and find conspiracy theories more believable than the truth so long as they fall in line with their preconceived notions. Unfortunately teaching critical thinking means kids may start to question what their parents have taught them at home, something guaranteed to get parents fired up to complain to the school board!

          So is it really any wonder that schools (this is true in the US, but I'm guessing probably in the UK as well) are basically teaching kids to parrot back a bunch of facts, along with methods to solve canned sets of problems. They leave them totally unable to cope with how to learn on their own - how to research and separate fact from fantasy - as well as solving novel problems they haven't previously encountered and been taught a series a steps to handle.

    3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      "Does she really believe radicalisation starts online?"

      That and those violent video games.

      BTW small point.

      May is a PPE graduate.

      'Nuff said.

    4. itzman
      Holmes

      It starts when politicians use ideology instead of common sense to determine [immigration] policy.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    Dear prime minister...

    While you take it out on Facebook and all then us citizens would be really delighted if the police would have taken the effort to look into possible terrorist threats when they get hold of information from several sources around the person (including from people in the Mosque he visits!) who tried to warn law enforcement that the person might seriously be up to no good. The person who has now followed up on his actions.

    I think there can never be an excuse for the police not to follow up on leads if it turns out that those leads are indeed very serious (which you can pretty sure conclude when even the people running a Mosque start raising their concerns about someone radicalizing I think). Yet here we are. Although the bomber had been put on a list of suspected people we've now learned from (international) media that the police never followed up on more recent warnings and concerns about this person actually becoming a threat.

    My parents always taught me that it's usually better to focus on the cause of a problem (and try to fix that) instead of focusing on the symptoms which this problem is causing and trying to remove those. Because although it may look as if you fixed things fact of the matter is still that the initial problem hasn't gone away and can only grow bigger.

    But what do us people know, right? Its so much better (<cough>easier</cough>) to focus on Facebook and other social media for spreading nasty videos and helping radicals sort out their plans. Much better for the government to get full access into the backdoors of Facebook so that they can act when something risky takes place. If you guys got your way we'll soon really get a situation when if someone posts a tweet in the likes off: "Let's bomb the bass tonight!" he'll soon be tracked, located and picked up for possible threat speech. Better to be safe than sore, right? Who could have known the person was referring to some kind of lame dance track from the 90's. Collateral damage, safety first!

    Yeah, safety first.... By NOT responding when several sources warn law enforcement that they're becoming really worried that a certain Muslim follower acts quite radical. They they even found out he had (indirect) ties into Al Quada and was frequently contacting sources in Syria about all sorts of things. When even his Mosque started to worry about the person (this one still baffled me, shouldn't all alarmbells go off when that happens and these people warn you?)....

    And what did the British police do? They had the person placed on a list of people to watch out for. That'd show him! However now it turns out they never followed up in actually monitoring him.

    But let's forget about this now, this is the kind of news you read on international media (my source being a Dutch newspaper who ran multiple stories) and which the British seem very protective off. They already scorned the US for allegedly leaking information about the whole thing to the press (I wonder why..). Seems to me the government doesn't want their citizens to know just how much they really did here. It's so much better to blame this on social media and encryption. Because those are evil things. Internet is to blame!

    I call that damage control, and I think it's plain out disgusting.

    (edit): I'm not claiming the police could have stopped the attack. But I do think it's plain out hypocritical to start a 'hate campaign' against social media when more could have been done. Social media is only the symptom of the real problem.

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: Dear prime minister...

      I can't help but think that the police don't have the resources needed to follow up on every report. I bet they get triaged and dealt with as and when there's time.

      1. Primus Secundus Tertius

        Re: Dear prime minister...

        The old East Germany always seemed to have enough police for that sort of thing.

        But do we want to live like the old East Germany?

        1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

          Re: Dear prime minister...

          "But do we want to live like the old East Germany?"

          Not really... even considering that the GDR had one or two things that weren't half bad.

          Ironically, never, not even in their wildest and wettest dreams, would the Stasi have dared to dream of today's possibilities re mass surveillance.

      2. Tony S

        Re: Dear prime minister...

        A key issue that has been brought up time and again. I'd highlight that the police have lost 20,000 staff (mostly front line police) in the last two years.

        The Home Secretary (Amber Rudd) was the lead speaker at the recent Police Federation conference (before the events in Manchester). In my opinion, she displayed a certain amount of contempt for them, and at one point was quite rude in her main speech. However, the delegates in return were polite and respectful, although they pressed her quite firmly for answers to questions. For her, the most embarrassing moment was when she tried to tell them what the average salary of a police officer was, and was out by about £17,000! To be blunt, police morale is now at its lowest level since the Police Strike of 1919.

        If that wasn't bad enough, after Manchester, they brought some armed forces in to provide additional support; but the army is now at the lowest manning level since the end of the Napoleonic War (1815), and morale there is definitely on the decline.

    2. bexley

      Re: Dear prime minister...

      While I agree with you quite a lot there are some additional factors to consider.

      1) the cops cant watch them all. Think how many people that would take. Lets say that a team of 4 people is needed to keep watch on a suspect. They cant work 24/7 so they need to work in shifts. Lets say that 4 shifts of 4 working 24/7 and factor in 1 more shift of 4 to cover absence and holiday. Now multiply that number by the the number of suspects on the watch list locally, and then nationwide, and then internationally.

      We would need a exponential increase in the number of cops., 4 or 5 times the size it is at now.

      2) I have heard stories of rivals within the muslim communities sending anonymous tip offs about their rivals, business rivals or people that they do not like into the Police, naturally these amount to nothing and are time wasted for the cops.

      3) Islamophobia, this one is pretty common, a guy with a scraggly beard, sandles and a dish dash moves in down the road. Other occupants on the street are reminded of all the bad things done by similarly dressed people. They call the police the moment that he does something suspicious like putting the rubbish out late at night.

      There is a guy near me that I don´t like the look of, I can easily imagine seeing his grainy face on a CCTV image after some atrocity however, my own common sense prevails and I have not called the Police with some paranoia fuled story about him.

      Not everyone has common sense though.

      I would venture, as many other have, that living under the threat of terrorism in one form or another suits most governments nicely, it makes it far easier for them to tighten their grip on us.

      I expect that the reason that anyone suggesting that perhaps our foreign policy might have something to do with islamic terrorism coming our way is ridiculed and mocked outrage ensues is because that foreign policy is often designed to produce the results that we are seeing.

  3. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    Get it right...!

    "In it he[Corbyn] placed part of the blame for terrorist attacks on Britain's foreign policy"

    No he didn't. You're repeating Tory propaganda.

    What he talked about was causes and reasons. Blame is a moral matter, cause is simply a factual link in a chain of events.

    The actions of the UK and other governments over the years have undoubtedly been a cause of some people becoming rather unhappy with Britain, and a very tiny minority deciding that as a result they should kill British children. The British government and some people may feel their actions were justified, but it doesn't stop those actions having a causal link to later events.

    Corbyn was very clear about that. "That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions." and "The blame is with the terrorists...". He also made clear that UK foreign policy is merely one factor "Those causes certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone. "

    He also noted "But the responsibility of government is to minimise that chance, to ensure the police have the resources they need, that our foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country, and that at home we never surrender the freedoms we have won, and that terrorists are so determined to take away."

    Who has been cutting police resources? Why did the security services not have the resources to follow up on the many reports they received about the Manchester nutter? How many freedoms have Theresa May and other Tory governments already taken away from us? How many more will go if she is elected next month?

    Corbyn's full speech is an interesting read, when not selectively edited by The Heil, the Sun, the Telegraph and the Tories. I've never been a Labour supporter, but I thought it rather hit the nail on the head.

    Full text at

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/05/jeremy-corbyn-speech-terrorism-and-foreign-policy-full-text

    </rant> - sorry, but I get really worked up about politicians misrepresenting reality for the sake of votes.

    1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

      Media editing

      They're all at it...

      I came across a story from the metro paper saying "UKIP want the death sentence for suicide bombers"

      Where upon reading what the UKIP leader actually said you find out that she said nothing of the sort.

      But hey ho, thats the media for you, never one to put their own bias on a story of course.

      As for May and her "campaign to rid farcebook et al of extremist speech" where does extremist speech end and normal speech begin?

      Who defines what is extremist?

      How much mission creep will there be?

      How much will the new laws be abused by the next generation of politicans.

      After all, I could see an election won by the green party and they decide anyone supporting nuclear power or wanting discussion of global warming causes being labeled "an extremist" and carted off to jail after having their postings deleted.

      The best way to fight extremists and their supporters is not to ban them and censor them (as many on the left want to do with the f***ing british nazi party and now May wants to do with so called muslim extremists) but to drag them out into the daylight and force them to discuss their views with people outside their own little circle of haters.

      1. P. Lee Silver badge

        Re: Media editing

        >The best way to fight extremists and their supporters is not to ban them and censor them ... but to drag them out into the daylight and force them to discuss their views with people outside their own little circle of haters.

        Oh for a thousand upvotes to give.

        Ok, maybe dragging them out forcibly is the wrong approach, but why not encourage discussion of various values? Our increasingly PC legal and social environment is so preoccupied with making sure someone's feelings are not upset that it forces the disengagement of those with less fashionable views from the rest of society. Forced to keep their beliefs locked away, they fester in the dark, reinforced by people who may be less extreme, but also have to insulate their beliefs from the tempering influence of the outside world.

        This appears to be driven mostly be secularists trying to eradicate religion, sometimes overtly, sometimes under the guise of "equality for all". It is a misguided strategy. What we need to be able to do is to defend our values and our positions. We need not just dialogue, but debate. We need to evaluate Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, New Age and Secular positions and apply some critical thinking. Rather than name-calling, we should encourage people to elucidate why their position is the best and should be adopted. "Should we punch a Nazi?" "Should we eat pork?" Sometimes the answer will be, "because X said so," an we can give that the attention it deserves, but we should encourage, not stifle the debate. Name-calling and trying to exclude people by "no-platforming" is a sign of a cause without reason.

        Sadly I don't think it will ever happen. Increasingly the debate platforms are advertising-funded and they thrive on eternal conflict and true-believers. As the protagonists become professional and/or commercial, their economic interests become aligned with with "keeping the conflict going." Even when they've won, they can't let the issues go.

        The aim should be to win your opponent to your position, not to try to demonstrate a third party that you are more intelligent or pious than the other man. What we need is increased tolerance - the ability to disagree with people without trying to destroy them just because they hold "sub-optimal" beliefs.

        1. John H Woods Silver badge

          Re: What we need is increased tolerance

          This is only possible If you actively combat intolerance. You can tolerate all the beliefs in a society, but some of those stupid beliefs lead to unacceptable practices (e.g. FGM) and those practices absolutely cannot be tolerated.

          Cultural relativism is bogus: some cultures are superior to others.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What we need is increased tolerance

            FGM? you drank the koolaid! This an issue for you why? Yet boys can be mutilated in the name of religion with impunity. It's all bad, but you only care about it when it's girls in some far away country.

            1. Bloodbeastterror

              Re: What we need is increased tolerance

              No surprise that you commented as AC...

              "you only care about it when it's girls"

              And on what basis do you spout this nonsense? He clearly said "e.g.", not "Here is a complete list".

              And FGM doesn't happen "in some far away country" - it happens anywhere that the filth of religion poisons people's minds.

            2. John H Woods Silver badge

              Re: What we need is increased tolerance

              "FGM? you drank the koolaid!"

              I am also against religious circumcision of minors but not only is it quicker to type FGM it is much worse in terms of the effect on adult sexuality, and serves as a better example. And that's what e.g. means...

        2. Primus Secundus Tertius

          Re: Media editing

          Yes, yes, all very well for dealing with intellectuals, but tell that to Al Capone and his ilk.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Media editing

        Nicely done Boris.

        "UKIP want the death sentence for suicide bombers"

        I'll let others who missed it let that one sink in.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Media editing

          "UKIP want the death sentence for suicide bombers"

          Brilliant headline. Shame about the veracity tho.

      3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        "How much will the new laws be abused by the next generation of politicans."

        We can get a feeling by how much the previous and current one have been.

        IOW A lot.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Get it right...!

      Of course whilst JC reviles the Islamic terrorist, he cant bring himself to even offer mild reproof for his murderous chums in the IRA....Hezbollah...etc etc.

      1. John H Woods Silver badge

        Re: Get it right...!

        You mean all those interviews where he repeatedly condemns all bombings? And in fact the IRA campaign specifically the other night.

    3. Anomalous Cowshed

      Re: Get it right...!

      "we never surrender the freedoms we have won, and that terrorists are so determined to take away"

      Are the terrorists really so keen to get us to surrender our freedoms? Frankly, I don't think it's the terrorists' number one concern. In what way would it benefit them? On the other hand, there is indeed someone who, throughout history, has sought to get us to surrender our freedoms: the government.

    4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Joke

      "Politician give nuanced speech and explains reasons for situation are complex" shock horror.

      Page 2 Journo's cannot cope with large number of whole sentences. "He ran us into the ground."

      page 3 Speech could not be summarised in 1 sentence."We were baffled."

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Terrorists are generally locals who have become very disaffected with the way their lives are not panning out as they would like. The cause they espouse is almost irrelevant. They will be open to any political ideology that appears to promise to give them meaning and control.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      See article in the Guardian

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/27/extremism-terrorism-far-right-neo-nazi-devon-arthurs

    2. Bob Hoskins

      RE: British prime minister slams Facebook and pals for votes

      "Terrorists are generally locals who have become very disaffected with the way their lives are not panning out as they would like. The cause they espouse is almost irrelevant. They will be open to any political ideology that appears to promise to give them meaning and control."

      Who just happen to be Muslim? Plenty of unhappy people in Britain but they don't go around killing kids.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: RE: British prime minister slams Facebook and pals for votes

        >Who just happen to be Muslim?

        Well you aren't going to see good catholic boys setting off bombs in the middle of Manchester

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: RE: British prime minister slams Facebook and pals for votes

          IRA anyone?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: RE: British prime minister slams Facebook and pals for votes

          "Well you aren't going to see good catholic boys setting off bombs in the middle of Manchester"

          Sadly not any more. When I were a lad. Weedkiller, sugar and paint tins with jetex fuses were just a normal part of life.

          Then the IRA ruined the fun

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: RE: British prime minister slams Facebook and pals for votes

        "Plenty of unhappy people in Britain but they don't go around killing kids."

        I beg to differ.

        15 August 1998. The Omagh bomb killed 29 people (including a woman pregnant with twins) as well as injuring some 220 others.

        20 March 1993 Two small bombs exploded in litter bins outside shops and businesses on Bridge Street, Warrington. Two children were killed and dozens of people were injured.

      3. gnasher729 Silver badge

        Re: RE: British prime minister slams Facebook and pals for votes

        'Who just happen to be Muslim? Plenty of unhappy people in Britain but they don't go around killing kids.'

        It takes two things to create a suicide bomber: One person who is generally unhappy with their life and wanting to do something that makes them stand out and give a reason to their life. Another person exploiting the first idiot and supplying them with ideas and tools. The first kind exists everywhere. The second kind did exist in Northern Ireland. And in the USA, with easy access to guns, the first kind can and does kill many without any help.

        PS. Your sentence is not logical at all. The last two idiots were both unhappy people in Britain.

  5. Elmer Phud

    Are we forgtting something?

    Other than the fact that May would shit on a kitten if she thought there was a vote in it, it seems that it's fine for right-wing groups to re-post old videos of stoning, whipping and beheading, while also gleefully posting pics of overflowing and sinking lifeboats with comments such as 'never teach a Muslim to swim', 'one less potential terrorist', 'shoot the fuckers while they are in the water' etc. etc, while also claiming to be 'compassionate Christians'.

    We are not buying this shit. from KKKippers, biffers etc.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      "Other than the fact that May would shit on a kitten if she thought there was a vote in it,"

      Not an image you really want in your head

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If

    we had not colluded with that cretin Bush and stayed the fuck out of the Middle East, we would not be in the utter mess we are in now.

    The politicians are utterly responsible for this mess.

    Dear radicals, can you please target the cretins in the big brick house with the enormous clock in *Londonistan please.

    Not the public, who, frankly, have no gripe with you but never get a say in what war our leaders decide to partake in, but have to suffer the inevitable retributions.

    *Allthough, they do have 24 hour protection whilst banging on about us "carrying on as normal". Yes, because we all have a 24 hour armed security contingent following us around. I'm sure I'd feel safe(er) if that was the case.

    Twats.

    1. Primus Secundus Tertius

      Re: If

      @cornz1

      No sir! These people are not letting off bombs in our midst because of a rational analysis of British foreign policy. They do it because they hate us; they hate us because we do not embrace their specific religion.

      We cannot repeat often enough that in Britain secular law takes priority. If they really cannot accept that, it is time they moved, or are moved, elsewhere.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If

        "We cannot repeat often enough that in Britain secular law takes priority. "

        Is that the secular law enacted by parliament that has christian prayers before each sitting and bishops voting on laws put forward by the commons?

        1. Primus Secundus Tertius

          Re: If

          @AC

          Every institution has its relics. The Labour Party has the Right Honorable Jeremy Corbyn MP.

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: If

          "We cannot repeat often enough that in Britain secular law takes priority. "

          That's why I can't shop on sunday or buy beer before 10:00am on a saturday? - that fscker Dawkins !

      2. Bloodbeastterror

        Re: If

        "they hate us because we do not embrace their specific religion"

        Well... no... not entirely. They target Britain because we joined in an unprovoked illegal assault (not "war") on Iraq, a sovereign state. If Iraq had *actually* attacked Britain I might feel differently; but as it stands my view is that that vile failed human being Blair painted a crosshair on our backs - and is now reaping the millions of pounds on the back of the millions of dead and suffering.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: If

          "They target Britain because we joined in an unprovoked illegal assault (not "war") on Iraq, [...]"

          The causality is slightly different. The aftermath of the Iraq invasion opened up the sectarian fault lines that had existed ever since the country was artificially created by France and Britain circa 1920 - true of most of the Middle East countries. It also allowed the Al Qaeda groups to infiltrate Iraq - where they previously had no traction.

          Tribalism in the West has largely been subsumed into nations over the last few centuries. In the Middle East and many other parts of the world it is still often the primary part of someone's identity. It is said of Arab politics that: "I will join my brother to fight my cousin - I will join my cousin to fight a stranger - I will join with a stranger to fight an invader".

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: If

            AC, it's a shame you are an AC, cos you make a quite valid point. A lot of the middle east unpleasantness is thanks to Sir Mark Sykes and M. Picot. They assumed (correctly as it turned out) that the faltering ottoman empire would not last, and drew some fairly random lines on a map deciding on 'spheres of influence', leading to some fairly daffy succession states after the empire fell, together with lots of broken promises. Which never goes down well anywhere, but at the risk of generalization, particularly so with people in that part of the world. Since then pretty much, endless hassle.

        2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          Re: If

          They target Britain because we joined in an unprovoked illegal assault (not "war") on Iraq, a sovereign state.

          Bollocks.

          Let me spell it out for you. I am no fan of Saddam, I am no fan of Qaddafi(*) and I am definitely no fan of Assad. They, however, were keeping a lid on middle eastern lunacy for us. We "imported" democracy there and assisted in the collapse of their dictatorships. That created the fertile soil on which the always present seeds of Islamic terrorism grew and flourished. We are now harvesting what we fertilized. The legality of their rule is irrelevant. We did not sow it - we just shoveled a load of manure on top for it to grow.

          What is relevant is that we went in and intervened without any plans for the "day after" and how we will control the unleashed lunatics having a free for-all.

          (*)Do not wave the PanAm 103 and UTA 772 at me. You need to understand what Qaddafi was doing first. Lybia was never a state - it was and is a patchwork of clans some more fanatical and violent than the others. Qaddafi farmed out government functions to various clans to balance their power. During that period intelligence was farmed out to one of the more lunatic clans. While the results were not pretty, they were still significantly less than what would have been a free for all of all clans against each other with lunatics breeding and growing in the environment - what we have now. Also, as a result of the resulting "chess game" that clan was taken off the board and was not in play at the time we intervened to "transition them to democracy"

    2. Bluenose

      Re: If

      Sorry that is a nonesense and even Jeremy Corbyn did not go down that route. The reality is that we are in the mess we are in because we along with other rich western states are seen as supporters of the people who oppress and abuse their populace. The UK, France, America and others have all had a fun time swapping leaders in the Arab world for years, funding their wars, providing the nice big toys that go bang and smoothing the road to corruption with those lovely bribes and backhanders we have provided. That makes us a valid target in the eyes of some people.

      Corbyn's perception of the issue is the right one, we need to change our foreign policy to undermine the conditions in which fanaticism can develop and to try and become the good guys. That is a hard position to get to particularly with our history but we can get there with hard work and an ethical as opposed to economic/patronage based foreign policy which we currently have.

      One war or even the 4 we have had in recent memory are not the reasons for Manchester or even Paris, they are the result of a much longer history and worse still a populist political environment wherein nationalist or power seeking politicians seek to blame one specific group for all the ills afflicting a specific grouping of people. Of course we in developed nations would never countenance that in our countries, would we?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If

        Whenever I see 'we need to' in a post, I cant but help remember the fable of the belling of the cat.

        It ALWAYS, without fail, presages a virtue signalling sentiment that takes absolutely no account of the laws of nature and of human nature.

        "We need to develop clean infinite reliable and sustainable energy"

        A classic case of 'I want all the rewards with none of the consequences or responsibilities'.

        The above poster clearly has put his Marxist sunglasses on and is talking the language of 'oppression' and 'victimhood' and I shouldn't be surprised if 'capitalism' and 'social justice' aren't lurking in there somewhere.

        He reminds me of the person I debated about cats and bird deaths.

        The inconvenient truths that the breeding rates of birds is such that 90% of chicks have to die in the first year of life to maintain a reasonable stable bird population, and that a cat with a bird in its mouth is not evidence that the cat actually killed it, were simply denied.

        The only dead birds he saw were in cats mouths, ergo only cats killed birds, and because some birds around is nice to have, infinitely more birds was obviously infinitely better.

        So, we must excuse these Islamic chaps for their bigotry and racism in extrapolating a very narrow and limited experience of the west to all Westerners? Whilst simultaneously decrying any bigotry and racism on the part of Westerners?

        In short we ought to know and do better, but they can't be expected to?

        The staggering implicit racism of the Liberal Left.

        Bit it's all just posturing isn't it? Virtue signalling, not intended to be serious policy.

        Just like climate change.

        If anyone really gave a damn about CO2 we would have 50GW of nukes online by now.

        Not spinning bird mincing prayer wheels ruining the view.

    3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      WTF?

      "..have a 24 hour armed security contingent following us around. I'm sure I'd feel safe(er)"

      Actually Wacky Jacqui Smith did and (when Home Secretary) still said she wouldn't walk the streets of London at night, due to the threat of crime.*

      And because she had nowhere to go as no one liked her.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lets be completely honest here,

    The first reason we are in the middle east is because of the oil. (Iraq/Libya/Syria/Afghanistan Pipeline)

    The second is because a nation based on Islam is unpalatable. (Afghanistan/Egypt)

    The only reason Pakistan hasn't been bitch slapped is because it has nukes and bends over for America.

    1. Ben Tasker Silver badge

      > The second is because a nation based on Islam is unpalatable. (Afghanistan/Egypt)

      Nah, I don't buy that argument to be honest.

      Indonesia is a Muslim majority country, and we've not made even the beginnings of an excuse to go and invade them. Nor the Maldives or various other countries which have a higher percentage of Muslims than Indonesia or Egypt.

      I think it's more that the leadership of Afghanistan/Egypt were unpalatable and happened to be Muslim, rather than it actually having much to do with religion. Other than that those leaders used religion to try and justify their views/methods, but in that case the religion is still just being used an an excuse to be a twatspanner

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I see your point but none of them are near Israel. They are also Muslim majority and not based entirely on Islam, i.e. Sharia Law whereas Egypt was moving towards that and Afghanistan was a Pakistan experiment on whether an Islamic state would work.

      2. Warm Braw Silver badge

        The leadership of Afghanistan/Egypt were unpalatable

        Can't be that either as the leadership of Saudia Arabia is even more unpalatable and we#re all over them, despite their contribution to the terror threat.

        1. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge

          Re: The leadership of Afghanistan/Egypt were unpalatable

          So what of Brunei? A Muslim country with Sharia law that's pretty peaceful and not been invaded by anyone? (Though we did think about it for a while) Malaysia (whist not under sharia law) also seems to be doing quite fine thank you so much even whilst they're in the firing line of ISIS too?

          Nether of these countries are actively supporting terrorism both are friendly to the west and they're proof that Muslims can get on their neighbours without too much fuss.

          1. Bluenose

            Re: The leadership of Afghanistan/Egypt were unpalatable

            I'm sure the Christian/Chinese/Hindu minorities in Malaysia might question you views on that country but the reporting in the British media is less than in depth so it is understandable why the growing use of Islam as a means to introduce repressive policies is not so wide known.

            That said, a key reason why Brunei and to an extent Malaysia are able to get on with their neighbours and abhor the more extreme misinterpreation of Islam that exists in the Middle East is simply because trade and economic health are seen as more important than religious intolerance.

          2. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: The leadership of Afghanistan/Egypt were unpalatable

            "Malaysia (whist not under sharia law) also seems to be doing quite fine thank you so much even whilst they're in the firing line of ISIS too?"

            last time I was in east malaysia (which was about 15 years ago), The Internet cafes all had pictures of Osama bin Laden smiling down from the walls, etc - despite them being completely illegal

            ISIS/Al Q/Taliban/Abu Sayaf and others had a foothold there a long time ago and their presence was pretty much encouraged the 400+ year ongoing holy war launched by the catholic nutters at the other end of the Sulu Sea.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The leadership of Afghanistan/Egypt were unpalatable

          Saudi owns most of the worlds debt.

        3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          "Can't be that either as the leadership of Saudia Arabia is even more unpalatable "

          I'll take a wild stab and say it might be that Saudi has a f**king enormous lake of oil underneath it.

          But I could be wrong.

  8. Primus Secundus Tertius

    News versus comment

    The article discusses Corbyn' speech: "a true, if difficult-to-digest, statement".

    This is mixing comment with news, so it is poor journalism.

    1. Bluenose

      Re: News versus comment

      But still significantly better than that exerised by the Sun, Times, Telegraph, Sky News, Mail and Express so on this occasion I think I can forgive the author.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: News versus comment

        Did you just attribute journalism to the Mail?

        Shame on you, at best the Mail is a comic for people without I.Q.'s

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: News versus comment

          Whereas the Guardian is for people who think they have way more IQ than they actually do...

  9. Nick Kew

    Extremist Agenda

    I struggle to think of an agenda more extreme than relegating your own MPs to a US-style electoral college whose role is merely to crown you personally as Supreme Leader.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Extremist Agenda

      " relegating your own MPs to a US-style electoral college whose role is merely to crown you personally as Supreme Leader."

      Please learn to distinguish between the roles of head of government and head of state. The PM is head of govt. POTUS is head of state. I'm not sure of the head of govt. role there - sometimes it's difficult to see if there is one but I assume it's also supposed to be POTUS.

      As ever there's much to learn from Yes (Prime) Minister - in this case Hacker's explanation of why he feared MPs more than the electorate: "They can vote against me at 10 o'clock tonight.

  10. Marketing Hack Silver badge

    I'm not sure I buy Corbyn's argument about foreign policy...

    It's for the British to decide how to run their country, but the bomber was the British-born son of Libyan refugees from the Qadaffi regime and

    1) Britain helped remove Qadaffi (And in fact, most of the bomber's family seems to have returned to Libya now that Qadaffi is gone)

    2) The bomber and his family seem to have received significant aid from British educational and social benefit programs, as well as jobs in Britain.

    And it is not like Western nations that have sat on the sidelines in various Middle Eastern wars, like Sweden and Belgium, have avoided major recent Islamic terrorist incidents.

    My own take is that the bomber's family were already Islamists, which is why they ran afoul of the secular Qadaffi regime, and the son became even more radicalized once he went to Libya and fought with Islamists to clear Qadaffi and his allies out. He got caught up in a strain of Islam that rejects modernism, latched on to a grievance that purportedly had to do with Western foreign policy, (Despite Western policy facilitating his family's return to Libya.) He was searching for any grievance. Ultimately, he probably would have snapped over any other aspect of secular British culture, like the way women dress.

    And on a law enforcement level, how does a guy who is presumably on British watch lists go to Libya for weeks, fly back through Turkey and return to Britain and not set off any alarm bells that would cause at least a questioning upon his return and a temporary assignment of a surveillance team?

    1. John H Woods Silver badge

      Re: searching for any grievance

      Possibly also overcompensating for having been a bad, pot-smoking Muslim who liked looking at girls. I wonder if there was a psychosexual motive for what appears to be a very specific targeting of young women and girls in particular. As with the Orlando shooting, i suspect it's a guilt-driven serial killer mindset looking for a higher justification.

    2. Bluenose

      Re: I'm not sure I buy Corbyn's argument about foreign policy...

      Because the security services have over 3,000 people allegedly on their watch lists and trying to watch every one 24 hours a day is pretty difficult, unless we want to create the British version of the Stasi.

      The fact that he was travelling backwards and forwards to Libya would not have been an immediate trigger (family living there, has direct familial ties to the country, etc.) and since BA have yet to schedule regular flights to Tripoli, it may simply be that flying via Turkey is the most reliable mechanism for getting to the country. Remember, people who regularly went to Ireland during the Troubles were not automatically put on a watch list either.

      1. Marketing Hack Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: I'm not sure I buy Corbyn's argument about foreign policy...

        @Bluenose

        But the guy was already on a watch list as an extremist. It's one thing to let people travel without question to a potential militant base country like Ireland or Libya if you have no evidence to believe they are potential militants themselves, and another to let an identified Feinian or militant Islamist do the same thing without examining why they were doing that.

    3. scrubber
      Joke

      Re: I'm not sure I buy Corbyn's argument about foreign policy...

      Even if everything you say is true he clearly wouldn't have harmed anyone had Facebook just had better filters in place, right?

      1. Marketing Hack Silver badge

        Re: I'm not sure I buy Corbyn's argument about foreign policy...

        @Scrubber

        I suspect the mechanism there is that PM May regularly sits in meetings where the security services are represented and can voice objections and constraints and name-drop their supporters in her party, but the social media companies are seldom represented.

        Plus it helps that FB is not a British company. If it were HQ'd in Silicon Roundabout and employed tens of thousands of British citizens and its investors and executives regularly mixed with the British political and business elite, there would probably be more talk of Facebook as a national treasure and less as lackadaisical terrorism-enablers.

  11. Winkypop Silver badge

    And I thought the witch was dead

    The ghost of Maggie rises in this one.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: And I thought the witch was dead

      "The ghost of Maggie rises in this one."

      Oh, so that's what people mean when they refer to May as "The Pound Shop Thatcher."

  12. John Watts

    Maybe she should move back a few steps to where the ideas that end up on YouTube come from - Saudi Arabia; the country that's spent $10 billion on exporting its own fundamentalist version of Islam across the world. Now, we all know that nobody's going to upset them because of the oil supply but how is it that Saudi Arabia's two main regional enemies Iran and Syria are supposed to be our mortal enemies?

  13. scrubber
    Big Brother

    Looks like it's not just Islam that needs an Enlightenment

    In the free marketplace of ideas we are so afraid that our ideas won't win out that we seek to ban other people's.

    And that, boys and girls, is how it begins.

    1. Truckle The Uncivil

      Re: Looks like it's not just Islam that needs an Enlightenment

      @scrubber

      You are right. We shouldn't even worry about social media (except as a way of collecting names) we should be answering their arguments, preferably with humour and ridicule as it is always the most effective.

  14. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "t is worth noting as well that Theresa May made no mention of the efforts underway in Europe by politicians that may actually have an impact "

    No surprise there. That would have been praising the enemy. Europe is her real enemy. Terrorists, tech companies, Labour; they're just part of the scenery to be used or dispatched according to circumstances. But European law is what she needs to defeat in order to get her own way.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Pint

    Boris Johnson said it before Corbyn

    Youtube

    So the choice is between someone who thinks that and someone who would appoint a foreign secretary who thinks that.

    But never mind politics, have a pint.

  16. Martin-73 Silver badge
    Joke

    I completely agree with her

    I was watching youtube this morning and was subject to an ad from some extremist organization called 'the conservatives'. Disgraceful. I reported the ad as inappropriate, but the people who made it should be brought to justice!

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Theresa May's Prime Directives:

    Shoot the messenger. If that doesn't work, censor them.

    Claim Corbyn is an extremist supporter - because anyone who disagrees with her is just that.

  18. conscience

    One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter...

    Rather than looking for scapegoats, maybe we should consider if this has a little something to do with us regularly killing so many other people?

    - - -

    (From Private Eye 1441 7-20th April 2017)

    "Despite employing seven researchers and specialist journalists in four countries, including Iraq, the respected Airwars organisation that collates information about civilian casualties caused by airstrikes has encountered a problem.

    According to its research, coalition airstrikes claimed almost 1,000 civilian lives in March alone, and, says Airwars, "with so many allegations to track and properly assess, for the first time in more than two years Airwars risks falling behind in our coalition monitoring".

    This is not surprising. The UK has contributed 1,187 recorded airstrikes to the coalition in February/March, including a strike by RAF Typhoons supporting operations in Monsul on 27th March, with no word from Ministry of Defence about civilian casualties. The MoD, meanwhile, reports that "the RAF continues to take all steps necessary to minimise civilian casualties".

    It remains to be seen if the targeting information gathered for the RAF by US and other coalition partners remains as accurate as the RAF is when it comes to delivering the ordinance.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "terrorists' hateful ideology was "moving from the battlefield to the internet" "

    Good. That's exactly where we want it. It gives advance warning if the NSA et.al. are doing their jobs and the internet has a natural resistance to ideology. If that's still not enough, I suggest hiring the El Reg commentariat en mass at consultant rates to take the piss out of every fibre of terrorist ideology, reasoning, propaganda, and their goats, clothes and mothers.

  20. RegGuy1 Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    It starts in the Mosques -- really?

    Does she really believe radicalisation starts online?

    It does not, it starts in the Mosque/School

    Ah ok. And I thought it was 13 year olds listening to wonderful stories of the paradise in Syria, if only they would get their arses over here to see for themselves.

    And then when they are there...

    but maybe you're right. Maybe it is the Mosques sending them over.

  21. DiViDeD Silver badge

    So Radicalism starts with a FaceBook post?

    Hurrah!! We can solve the problem of terrorist violence in one step!

    Surely, if a person can be 'radicalised' to the point of being willing to strap explosives to his body and blow himself to pieces simply from reading an 'evil' farcebook post, then it follows that he can be DEradicalised back to the holy path of Catholicism by, say, making them watch an episode of Father Ted.

    Sorted!

  22. Kiwi Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    I can think of plenty

    "I want to make it clear: there can never ever be an excuse for terrorism ..."

    I can think of plenty. The actions of the French Resistance during WWII, and other like-minded people at other times for a start.

    And if she wins the election (God I hope not!), will she disband the SAS et all, including much of MI6 and other organisations who have terrorists"operatives" who enter other countries and commit terrorist atrocities against infrastructuresabotage or destroy strategic enemy installations? Sometimes resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians"enemy combatants"?

    What is a terrorist action to one person is a person fighting for right to another. The one who thinks it is right may be seriously fucked in the head, but I bet they'll believe the same about you.

  23. arc_ie

    Statistics rules

    Just how statistics and data research has rules for thenpopulation. Similar strategies must be asked to be applied by social media giants.

    1. If the post is limited to a circle of people with similar views, bots must post alternate stories in the comments of the post, from varified sources. These bot comments cannot be silenced.

    2. All urls that are posted, must be read and sentimental analysis be carried out by bots.Something google does for its search results but not for google+

    The idea is that posts must NOT be able to point to a particular caste, creed, or other stereotypes, it must be shuffled to show the other side. To make it democratic medium.

    It must follow the rules of humanity, statistics and thatnof a independent reporter else be punished

  24. Tom 64
    Coffee/keyboard

    "hateful propaganda"

    Mrs. May probably defines this as anti-tory general election campaigning.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Hateful is an irregular verb

      You are hateful

      I am robust

      He is charged under the Terrorism Act.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020