hypochondriac

Can't argue with that. Like Duckhunter says, I can disagree with most things that Tony Blair did but I can respect the fact that he was carrying out what he believed in and he had a vision for the country that was clear.

I think Sesay is too good for our reserves. I'd stick him on loan if we aren't minded to use him.

Of course what I consider to be the most important priorities is what I would want our money to be spent on first. That applies to everyone who has an opinion on public finances. Your second point I entirely agree. We will find out more in due course but it sounds like he slipped through the net for whatever reason in a similar fashion to Rudakubana. It's not just monitoring, there's a lot more we can do in prisons, faith schools, mosques, clubs outside of schools and particularly with Islamic radicalisation of youths but like you said that's going to require more resources to make positive changes.

You’re misrepresenting what I said. Pointing out that Islamist extremism currently consumes most counter-terrorism resources and therefore IN MY OPINION should be a top funding priority is not the same as demanding “unlimited” funding. It’s just basic logic: if the main threat is underfunded, that’s where the danger lies. Dismissing that as “over-simplistic” is a lazy dodge. Everything in public spending involves trade-offs, obviously that doesn't need saying, but pretending it’s impossible to quantify or prioritise just lets politicians off the hook from ever making hard decisions. Calling it “populism” doesn’t make it less valid — it just makes it sound like you’d rather sneer at the argument than actually engage with it.

I think you’ve slightly misread my point. I wasn’t arguing that we should throw unlimited money at counter-terrorism or create some dystopian surveillance state. I was saying that it’s possible to estimate the additional funding that would be needed for the police/security services to deliver what they themselves or other experts say is necessary to deliver a better service. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with the spending or that you think it wouldn't be better spent elsewhere, but pretending the question is unanswerable or that it’s “populist” to ask it is just ducking the issue. Every area of government has competing priorities, of course — but unless we actually quantify the gap or get someone who knows what they're talking about to estimate it, we can’t even have a sensible discussion about whether extra funding should come from reprioritisation, new taxation, or not at all. Just dismissing it as “too complex” is exactly the kind of vague hand-waving that ensures the debate never goes anywhere. Yes it's more complex than just funding it but it's also not as complex as you're making it sound. We can certainly create a better funded and more effective service, even MI5 themselves say they need more resources to tackle it more effectively.

That's the suggestion @Sheaf Saint has made. I am taking it at face value for the sake of the discussion.

Why are you acting like funding for counter terrorism would be an impossible thing to estimate? What you'd do is look at the existing threat or get people who know what they are talking about to look at the threat and then increase the funding to a level so that more people are monitored and more potential terrorists are dealt with. How do we estimate funding for healthcare or education? How is this different? Obviously the types of threat and the severity of the threat would change and you're not going to be able to prevent every terror attack but you'd change things as the facts change.

There needs to be an understanding of the increased risk the offspring of foreign parents pose, particularly from certain countries and definitely if their parents are spouting extremism. It's a balance because you don't want to start picking on innocent people but it should certainly be taken into account when deciding on the risk of someone committing something like that.

I'm not convinced that's the sole reason but if that is a factor then it needs rectifying immediately. Frankly bizarre that something like that wouldn't be funded in full. Obviously you need to combine it with measures to remove some of the problem alongside monitoring.

If we need more funding and resources concentrated on rooting out Islamist extremism which takes up the majority of existing resources then that should happen immediately. I expect a policy of that nature would be popular with the general public. Labour should implement it now.

I understand it's more complex as he was younger when he moved here so I understand there would be a debate on that but to me you don't just become a citizen on a piece of paper. If you commit terrorist acts and you have claims to multiple countries then stripping you of British citizenship should at the very least be explored.

Personally I think if you come here as an adult as the dad has done and you spout stuff like he has done and clearly brought up a terrorist then for me a piece of paper doesn't make you British. There should be more than that in my opinion. Shamima begum was stripped of her citizenship for good reason and that power should be used more frequently.I accept that's just my personal view.

I'm not sure any class is called for when mocking an Islamic extremist murderer. Seriously though, a man of Syrian ethnicity with a father who has openly expressed anti semitic sentiments online, is out on bail for an alleged rape and has multiple other criminal convictions and not even on the radar of counter terrorism? It's an utter failure of the system.

Sounds like it's time to start doing a bit of looking back in anger.

I get that it's common to cite foreign policy and Palestine as “reasons,” but let’s be honest: that doesn’t explain why the vast majority of terror attack in the UK over the past 20 years has been linked to extremist Islam, not atheists, not Christians, not Buddhists. If this was just about Western interventions, you’d see Hindus or Sikhs blowing themselves up too, given Britain’s history in India. But you don’t. The truth is that the ideology matters. It’s not just “foreign policy blowback,” it’s a very specific interpretation of Islam that’s driving this. Pretending otherwise is just dodging the obvious. Most Muslims are peaceful and want to get on with their lives — although some of them hold objectionable views-but that doesn’t change the fact that the terror threat here overwhelmingly comes from Islamist extremists, not anyone else.

Have you never wondered why there is a particular emnity towards Jews from some Muslims?

Agreed. We are and have been much too soft. Successive governments have put their citizens at risk and are a big reason for the rise of Reform.

Firstly why have we not been more selective taking people from countries that we know statistically are much higher risk? Secondly when we see disgusting posts like his father's is he not then monitored with a view to possibly removing the threat back to Syria where he came from?

There's no mention of Jews in the Qaran?

Sounds like it was under a Blair government.

A particular type of extremist that seemingly hates Jews and appears to be influenced by his father to hate Jews. I wonder what extremist ideology it was that caused him to hate Jews to the extent that he'd want to go out and murder them? I wonder why so many of these types of extremist attacks are committed by the sons of foreign born parents from particular regions?

Does this refer to something else or did he know what was going to happen?

How did this guy get into the country? Was he given British citizenship? If he posted this on October 7th why was he not immediately under investigation? Clearly his views have had an impact on his son.

Edit: found it

Fair enough I wasn't paying attention but the point still applies.