I think you're over exaggerating the reaction. If we were talking about 10 people then perhaps but 3000 different doors to knock on would take some uprising.
In your mind these violent thugs who aren't acting on their hatred would suddenly lose control. You're making out the extreme right wing, as extreme as they may be are on parallel with terrorists.

To put it into perspective the majority of ordinary people would openly talk about killing or castrating peadophiles. Paedophiles are named and shamed and the percentage of revenge attacks are minor.

Also 'thought crime' is a liberal protection of people considered to be a danger. They wouldn't be considered dangerous if they'd only thought something. And with the loss of anonymity comes levels of how dangerous they are considered and what they'd done to be on this 'list'. If anyone were to be targeted you'd expect it to be those considered most dangerous based on how close they'd come.

 

You believe the general public have a right to bomb making recipes and potential terrorists have the right to anonymity.
I think you need some time to reflect.

 

Would an adherent of:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlu..._(organisation)


be guilty of thoughtcrime?

 

In the real world intel and surveillance doesn't tend to work very well if the subject knows they're being watched

 

Link doesn't work

 

In the real world surveillance hasn't worked either.

 

Click the "do you mean" button.

 

How can you know the answer to that?


If you mean there's been 5 extremists in recent months that have turned to terrorism, then I guess you're right. I suggest that the security services would have a different perspective though.

 

I'll leave this here:

https://www.scoobynet.com/855473-isl...ml#post9679943

 

There is no such thing as thought crime. Anyone who supports a banned organisation is guilty in my eyes.
Again it's something to be considered. Supporting is one thing, getting to the point where you're discussing hypothetical targets, dates, methods etc is another level.
I'm sure there's threat levels of those being watched. Neil for example and his desperate requirements to google how to make bombs and keep anonymity would put him high up .

 

Have a read of my second link.

 

I'd imagine they would. I imagine their perspective is that their isn't enough of them and those 5 have slipped through the net.
Should we spend more public money to recruit more officers to keep tabs on those we are protecting from the public. If so, where would you take the money from to fund this.
Do you think Martin anonymity is to blame for people taking steps they know they shouldn't have?.

Should we consider changing laws to make certain aspects that have made these people considered dangerous actual crimes?
Do you disagree in naming and shaming peadophiles, burglars, thieves, armed robbers, rapists?

What is it about potential terrorists that makes you think we should keep their identities secret.

 

Skimmed it. If you want to say something say it. I'm not reading massive quotes because you're too lazy.

 

The very first paragraph spells out that Abbas is an adherent of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. Would you put Abbas on your list?

I'm not lazy, but I do have a memory like an elephant.

 

And you want to see people locked up or taken out by a lynch mob on the basis you don't like the way they think. If anyone needs some time to reflect I think it's you.

 

Wow. 'Don't like the way they think'. Amazing.
This isn't about thinking. It is impossible to tell how someone thinks unless they express their thoughts either verbally, in text or in actions.
EVERYBODY on that list would have expressed in some way, shape or form their support or intention towards terrorism.

Nothing to do with thought, or your ridiculous attempt to make it sound like 'thought police' or some other liberal nonsense.

What was this guy 'thinking' yesterday?

https://www.facebook.com/1633929420209134/videos/1850803351855072/

And no, I don't want people to be 'taken out by a lynch mob'. Again an over reaction. Peadophiles are publicly named and despite the public despising them in the same manor as terrorists there are surprisingly low amounts of vigilante attacks against Paedophiles.

In the same nature a person who looks at child **** people would just be 'aware of' whereas someone walking the streets (which is unlikely) having raped a little girl I'd expect to have some anger heading in their direction (which is unlikely

In the same aspect if someone joined a forum that supported terrorism people would be wary but not as motivated as having someone who has shared plans, dates, locations of an attack they plan to carry out (again unlikely).

 

For a start I'm on an iPhone. The link you've sent is of a thread 8 pages long and your not saying where or on what page it is said.

But ill humour you. He has the right to believe what he wants to believe in. He has the right to support who he wants to support.
Its when that support becomes more than just a thought or harmless words turn into something sinister is when the line is crossed.
Again though, even if he wrote words of hatred his crimes I'd imagine would be relatively small in comparison to some people already on the list.

As an apparent 'holy man' I think it's time you forgave something written so long ago.

 

Lot of imagining ....

How do you even know The "list"exists ?

still , keeps you occupied whilst you should be working

 

Zagbah not even on the "List" 3000

Now what do you do ?

 

heres one list that excists
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7400756.html

 

It takes an imagination to create. You can't solve a problem without creating a solution.
Hence the lack of imagination and opposing solutions provided by the liberal hippies on this thread.
It's ok to scoff when you have no ideas of your own.

List, database whatever. The police deem certain individuals as dangerous, and they thrive on anonymity and surprise. Personally I think anyone who thinks protecting their anonymity is paramount is a danger to the public themselves.

 

How can they be anonymous if theyre on a list ??

 

I'm no holy man, I am just a sinner saved.

 

What was your sin/s?

 

There's not enough bandwidth.

 

Lots of people here seem to think along similar lines to kwik
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may...etition-no_msg

 

I wouldn't call 0.2% of the population a lot.

 

It's a pity this wasn't put together by someone who could write using correct English; they might get more support then.

 

I`m assuming your counting children, fact is 150,000 is needed for it to be raised in parliament.

It is a pity, but i`m sure you understand the point.

 

What's that got to do with life? There's no lower age limit on that site.