Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This is the tough part obviously.

The best I've been able to come up with is a data-finding and registration process, resulting in a database (MuslimNet for the rest of this post) that is then kept current by a combination of work by the authorities and the Muslim communities themselves . There are issues no doubt, and would beg the question 'why not all religions?' but that's where I think we (as in the UK) need to be resolute and accept that it will be impossible to tackle this problem without treading some uncomfortable ground.

I'll admit that I haven't thought every detail through, but basically Muslim communities would be identified and recorded on MuslimNet as entities. They would elect a leader or team of leaders that would be responsible for keeping their house in order on the database via a web portal interface, online forms and other tools. Mosques would also be registered as entities, as would the users of those Mosques. Communities and mosques could be scored (activities of persons of interest, low registration rates, missing data) and actions triggered by a high score. High scoring communities would therefore find themselves dealing with the authorities more regularly, which would hopefully make them get their act together.

It seems like a whole load of red tape, but this wouldn't be a 'make life difficult for Muslims' thing. The idea is to make community leaders accountable and responsible for helping the authorities weed out their radicalised, or potentially radicalised members. As I said before, I suspect this accountability and responsibility isn't acknowledged to the extent it needs to be, once the premise that Islam is at the heart of the problem is acknowledged. MuslimNet would force that acknowledgement, which isn't ideal - but this is the situation we are in.

Are you serious about this Orwellian wet dream?

Theresa May might even think twice about this. It's the 21st century equivalent of a yellow Star of David.

Would it be a crime to be an unregistered Muslim? What punishment would you suggest for praying while not on the database?

 

[Worm]

I'll admit that I haven't thought every detail through.

You don't say.

 

[Reeco]

Why is it so bad?

 

[Reeco]

Are you serious about this Orwellian wet dream?

Theresa May might even think twice about this. It's the 21st century equivalent of a yellow Star of David.

Would it be a crime to be an unregistered Muslim? What punishment would you suggest for praying while not on the database?

No, not a crime. But a community where the registration figures were low might be candidates for increased police attention.

 

[Reeco]

You don't say.

What do you think we should do?

 

[The Don]

No, not a crime. But a community where the registration figures were low might be candidates for increased police attention.

Exactly !

You'd certainly want those areas of the country where people want to maintain basic human rights to come under close police scrutiny

....and of course asking for a section of society to register or else come under close police scrutiny is a surefire way to win hearts and minds in the battle against radicalisation

 

[Worm]

What do you think we should do?

Do you know, I'm not sure, it is - I think we would all agree, not an easy situation.

However, one thing I am sure of is that I'm not happy with any approach that starts off by treating every person of a particular faith as a potential terror suspect, then basically requires that they demonstrate their innocence.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, not a crime. But a community where the registration figures were low might be candidates for increased police attention.

Apart from this being pretty horrendous as an idea, do you really think it would work?

I can only see one of two things happening - a complete boycott or a mass campaign of registrations by everyone to the database and a load of misinformation being registered.

You also seem to have made the system self administered which suggests to me that the wrong uns will tell lies to game the system and that it will only end up with innocent people being targetted and an increase in resentment and tensions.

Not to mention the huge administrative effort to filter through the masses of junk data telling us nothing about anything.

Finally don't you think its telling that nobody with any expertise in counter terrorism or policing is suggesting this?

 

[Reeco]

Apart from this being pretty horrendous as an idea, do you really think it would work?

I can only see one of two things happening - a complete boycott or a mass campaign of registrations by everyone to the database and a load of misinformation being registered.

You also seem to have made the system self administered which suggests to me that the wrong uns will tell lies to game the system and that it will only end up with innocent people being targetted and an increase in resentment and tensions.

Not to mention the huge administrative effort to filter through the masses of junk data telling us nothing about anything.

Finally don't you think its telling that nobody with any expertise in counter terrorism or policing is suggesting this?

I'd like to think that many Muslim communities wouldn't do what you suggest. That they would understand the reasoning behind something that I admit is fundamentally unpleasant. You seem to have a bad opinion of Muslims.

The system wouldn't be self administered at all.

 

[Reeco]

Do you know, I'm not sure, it is - I think we would all agree, not an easy situation.

However, one thing I am sure of is that I'm not happy with any approach that starts off by treating every person of a particular faith as a potential terror suspect, then basically requires that they demonstrate their innocence.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I'm not happy with that either, but it's better than arming all police, and it gives Muslim communities the opportunity to help the authorities. It could even be made optional.

 

[Reeco]

Exactly !

You'd certainly want those areas of the country where people want to maintain basic human rights to come under close police scrutiny

....and of course asking for a section of society to register or else come under close police scrutiny is a surefire way to win hearts and minds in the battle against radicalisation

I'm not sure I understand your first paragraph. As for your second paragraph, well Islam is already are under close scrutiny, as it should be. With more funding the scrutiny will increase. My idea would empower communities to be involved themselves.

What would you suggest?

 

[Darat]

It's Ma'am's role to visit disaster victims in hospital. They are her subjects.

Sure, it's nice of Ariane to drop by, but were all the cameras and makeup department necessary?

I'll bet Gary Barlow also visited but kept it private.

I am not criticising Ariana doing what she does, it just comes across as tacky.

There were 22 victims who died in Manchester and >64 injured. It is about them. Focussing on the celebrities trivialises their great trauma IMV.

So why do you do it?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

What would you suggest?

Aren't you a Brit? Isn't "keep calm and carry on" y'all's thing?

Just do that.

Investigate. Learn about the perpetrators: when they planned, why, what was the vector of their recruitment? Surely these weren't good Muslim boys playing in the street until a robed cleric approached and said, "hey, wanna go stab some people?" Before kneejerking, learn all you can and figure out whose groin actually needs kneeing, then jerk.

Leave the unjustified fear-based discrimination against entire classes of people to us. We're better at it.

 

[Darat]

This is the tough part obviously.

The best I've been able to come up with is a data-finding and registration process, resulting in a database (MuslimNet for the rest of this post) that is then kept current by a combination of work by the authorities and the Muslim communities themselves . There are issues no doubt, and would beg the question 'why not all religions?' but that's where I think we (as in the UK) need to be resolute and accept that it will be impossible to tackle this problem without treading some uncomfortable ground.

I'll admit that I haven't thought every detail through, but basically Muslim communities would be identified and recorded on MuslimNet as entities. They would elect a leader or team of leaders that would be responsible for keeping their house in order on the database via a web portal interface, online forms and other tools. Mosques would also be registered as entities, as would the users of those Mosques. Communities and mosques could be scored (activities of persons of interest, low registration rates, missing data) and actions triggered by a high score. High scoring communities would therefore find themselves dealing with the authorities more regularly, which would hopefully make them get their act together.

It seems like a whole load of red tape, but this wouldn't be a 'make life difficult for Muslims' thing. The idea is to make community leaders accountable and responsible for helping the authorities weed out their radicalised, or potentially radicalised members. As I said before, I suspect this accountability and responsibility isn't acknowledged to the extent it needs to be, once the premise that Islam is at the heart of the problem is acknowledged. MuslimNet would force that acknowledgement, which isn't ideal - but this is the situation we are in.

How would your system do this?

 

[baron]

What would you suggest?

There's the rub. I'm not talking about The Don's post, but those who criticise the loudest have the least to contribute with regard to solutions. Corbyn actually boasts that this is the case. He's spent his life protesting against every piece of anti-terror legislation and not once has he proposed a viable solution of his own, other than to have more uniformed officers on the beat (or 'pigs in helmets' as he once referred to them).

 

[William Parcher]

I'm not happy with that either, but it's better than arming all police, and it gives Muslim communities the opportunity to help the authorities. It could even be made optional.

My suggestion is to arm more police, not all police. Locate them in places where terrorist attacks are determined to be most likely to occur. In areas that are determined to have low likelihood you have no increases in armed police.

 

[Reeco]

How would your system do this?

Information sharing.

 

[Reeco]

My suggestion is to arm more police, not all police. Locate them in places where terrorist attacks are determined to be most likely to occur. In areas that are determined to have low likelihood you have no increases in armed police.

Not saying that's a bad thing, but it can't be the only thing. It would slightly increase the chance of fewer people being killed or injured when an attack takes place, but it wouldn't prevent the attack in the first place.

For that we need community involvement.

 

[The Don]

I'm not sure I understand your first paragraph.

I was being sarcastic.

Your assumption is that areas with lower levels of "Muslim" registration are areas which are hotbeds of radicalisation. I was presenting an alternative, that areas with lower levels of "Muslim" registration are areas where people care about basic human rights and so would refuse to sign up and furthermore people like me would register as Muslims and then refuse to sign up.

I was also suggesting that any society that would tolerate such a gross restriction of basic human rights is likely to be the kind of society that would actually be very interested in areas where people care about basic human rights and would seek to make life as hard as possible in those areas.

As for your second paragraph, well Islam is already are under close scrutiny, as it should be. With more funding the scrutiny will increase. My idea would empower communities to be involved themselves.

What would you suggest?

Asking all people of particular faith might be rather antagonistic and would merely make the radicalisers' work much, much easier. This is the exact opposite of what you claim to want to achieve.

What do I suggest ? I'm not sure, it's a really, really complex subject - but almost certainly not that.

 

[Pianoro]

This is the tough part obviously.

The best I've been able to come up with is a data-finding and registration process, resulting in a database (MuslimNet for the rest of this post) that is then kept current by a combination of work by the authorities and the Muslim communities themselves . There are issues no doubt, and would beg the question 'why not all religions?' but that's where I think we (as in the UK) need to be resolute and accept that it will be impossible to tackle this problem without treading some uncomfortable ground.

I'll admit that I haven't thought every detail through, but basically Muslim communities would be identified and recorded on MuslimNet as entities. They would elect a leader or team of leaders that would be responsible for keeping their house in order on the database via a web portal interface, online forms and other tools. Mosques would also be registered as entities, as would the users of those Mosques. Communities and mosques could be scored (activities of persons of interest, low registration rates, missing data) and actions triggered by a high score. High scoring communities would therefore find themselves dealing with the authorities more regularly, which would hopefully make them get their act together.

I personally don't think this is a good idea or would work, but I do appreciate you putting your suggestions out for discussion.

Having said that, even if the database could be implemented and populated as you suggest, it seems that it would change very little from the status quo.

Authorities already know which communities are "problem" communities. Mosques (and other places of worship) already are registered entities. Individual members are not, but note that most extremists already are in some sort of database. This shows when terrorist attacks happen. The perpetrators are usually revealed to be known to the police already. It's not (in most cases) that the authorities don't know who the extremists are, it's that there are not enough resources to keep taps on every single thing they do.