Yes, I would expect so.
British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'
- Thread starter hipipol
- Start date
Yes, I would expect so.
Apologies, my bad, I forgot they're not called control orders anymore - they're called TPIM's now.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 - Wikipedia
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 - Wikipedia
bimble
floofy
I think it was the london bridge attack, i read that the man had been taken off the 'very dangerous, use resources to watch him intensely' list because he had successfully convinced psychologists - specialists in this area- that he renounced those beliefs and had reformed. It is a tricky thing.
yep, he'd successfully completed - twice! - the government's "Desistance and Disengagement Programme" (DDP), which i think theyre trying to work on now to make it somehow more effective.
Factsheet: Desistance and Disengagement Programme - Home Office in the media
News and updates from Home Office Media
De-radicalisation approach needs 'fundamental review' - Prison Officers' Association
The father of London Bridge victim Jack Merritt says longer sentences are "not a solution" to extremism.
www.bbc.co.uk
bellaozzydog
rolling turds in glitter
Politically/optics
I think it was the london bridge attack, i read that the man had been taken off the 'very dangerous, use resources to watch him intensely' list because he had successfully convinced psychologists - specialists in this area- that he renounced those beliefs and had reformed. It is a tricky thing.
yep, he'd successfully completed the government's "Desistance and Disengagement Programme" (DDP), which i think theyre trying to work on now to make it somehow more effective.
Factsheet: Desistance and Disengagement Programme - Home Office in the media
News and updates from Home Office Mediahomeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk
If I remember rightly Usman Khan was never subject to a TPIM ?
DDP is a different thing altogether.
bimble
floofy
I see your TPIM legislation but cant make much sense of it, or whether it would actually stop someone committing an offence. You can't put someone under preventative house arrest, literally, can you, for years?
Even practically speaking how would that work would the government drop food off for them?
Even practically speaking how would that work would the government drop food off for them?
This might help clarify:
Unconvicted terrorism suspects face indefinite controls under UK bill
"There are already 14 measures that can be imposed, including overnight residence requirements, relocation to another part of the UK, police reporting, an electronic monitoring tag, exclusion from specific places, limits on association, limits on the use of financial services, and use of telephones and computers, and a ban on holding travel documents."
bimble
floofy
Yes but if you were desirous of attacking people at random with a knife, for instance, in your local tescos, none of that would stop you would it. The house arrest bit being only at night time is particularly weird.
I haven't got any suggestions, I think the kind of restrictions that would actually prevent such a thing, if the person wanted to do it, don't exist short of lifetime imprisonment based on perceived risk of them maybe doing it one day, which isn't any kind of answer either.
Last edited:
I used to look after the children of a man who was subject to a control order (pre tpim but similar). I was hired by his legal team to do so.
His house and landlines were bugged (state had proved this in legal hearing prior to me being hired).
Nobody in his house was allowed a mobile phone, computer, any means of accessing the Internet.
He had to phone in from his home phone so many times per day he didn't have time to go to mosque or shops in between phone calls.
The phone call was to a computer that struggled with his accent, leading to raids on the home by armed cops frequently.
Nobody could visit him without first applying to the government and being "screened". No Muslim would do so for fear of being targeted so he (and his wife and kids) were 100% socially isolated.
His lawyers had won an exception to that for them and their employees but it was a hard battle.
There was more but this is what I remember most strongly.
Yes I do think it stopped him from attacking anyone, not that I think he would have otherwise.
ETA - Forgot to add, he was tagged. When this went faulty more armed cops would raid, within minutes of any problem occurring.
Fair enough. And yes, it was deeply traumatising for the kids (the members of the family who I knew best/cared most about).
I may not agree but I respect your point of view and accept your fears are quite reasonable.
I guess I'm tending to the view that she'd be more of a risk for trying to recruit others (if not under a TPIM/control order) rather than what you're thinking of. I can't know that though can I.
bimble
floofy
I'm not actually afraid, personally, or not aware of feeling that. I mean I'd put terrorist knife attack in tescos way down on my list of worries. Just find it interesting, more in the abstract really.
OK fair enough! Sorry for labelling it a fear when it isn't.
bmd
Island in the stream.
Awks indeed. Soooo, you been anywhere nice?
Athos
Well-Known Member
I don't think they they'd prevent anyone who was determined to commit an act of terrorism from doing so.
Last edited:
I think so too and that's why I think I'd feel safer with people like this young woman here, in the UK, being properly monitored, rather than elsewhere in the world acting more freely.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
What had he done to be placed in this situation?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Sorry, typo - I meant to say "I DONT think they would...".
Alleged funding of terrorism training in Afghanistan.
He said he was funding ordinary schools for children.
I never bonded with him and had (indeed have) no opinion as regards his guilt or innocence.
I did bond a bit with his wife, and a lot with his children.
Subsequently mum took kids to her family in Lebanon. A year or two after they left the UK (without him) he was killed by US forces in Afghanistan. I did not stay in contact with any of the family after my brief (2 months) time with them.
For his wife and children?
She gave birth, for the 6th time, during the winter I took care of the older five.
She told me "I love all of my children with all.of my heart, but I pray Allah please give me no more!" the day she came home after the birth. She really meant it.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
It’s highly regrettable for his wife and children but he put them in that situation.
Have I, or has anyone else here, suggested otherwise?
Sorry, typo - I meant to say "I DONT think they would...".
Do you think she can or will be better monitored, indeed controlled, by the UK state while she is elsewhere?
Is that a good thing?
Is she really that much less dangerous to us who live here, while she is elsewhere?
I don't know for sure, none of us can, but obviously I feel it's safer for us all if she is here.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I think she's less able to commit an atrocity in the UK whilst she's in a camp in Syria. (Which isn't to say that ought to be the single determinant of whether or not she should be allowed back.)
Last edited:
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
No. How long does it take someone to leave the house and stab passers by? Answer, a lot less time than it would take for the police to arrive.
Of course.
But arguably more able to recruit and organise others to do it for her, back in the UK?
Or to kill people elsewhere?
ETA I mean maybe not from the camp she is apparently in right now, but if/when she leaves there.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's astonishing to me that so few people here given the chance would really abide by the maxim 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'
given what osama bin laden did from the fastnesses of the hindu kush 20 years ago you'd have thought that by now western governments would have realised that small and far away are no longer synonyms for powerless.
Similar threads
