-Reported convert (still a grey area) -Criminal record, low level, drugs & breaching parole (confirmed criminal) -Authorities aware of his possible links (confirmed)
Whilst this all remains to be confirmed its remarkably common background circumstance and would, if proven, provide a very typical view of a societal malcontent who ends up with something rather more serious going on.
In addition the guy had his passport confiscated, reportedly he was due to travel..to the Middle East.
A few weeks back I mentioned that IS membership and its attendant worship of violence represented the seeds of its destruction. Those seeds are fairly evident already, its a movement only incidentally related to its supposed religious fervor. In reality its a movement with its common cause in its particular violence and power rush. That will in itself lead to spin off & splinters. Add in those (already evident) who joined to find that actually the movement was nothing like promoted and it will eventually, combined with external pressure, implode.
If you confiscate an extremist's passport, you really should be ready for them launching an attack inside the country in question as an act of revenge.
There was this weird media obsession about passports that resulted in some deeply crazy policy. It's understandable to want to stop people entering the country, but then apparently they simultaneously want to stop them leaving...
Presumably you want to (a) not let people go and train as terrorists and (b) not want them to come back once they are trained.
it really doesn't take that much training, does it?
It turns out there are distance learning courses available.
The pretrial review in Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd (TLJ/14/0554) and Rowland v Mitchell MP (TLJ/14/0554) will take place later today in the High Court of Justice before the Honourable Mr Justice Warby.
If you confiscate an extremist's passport, you really should be ready for them launching an attack inside the country in question as an act of revenge.
There was this weird media obsession about passports that resulted in some deeply crazy policy. It's understandable to want to stop people entering the country, but then apparently they simultaneously want to stop them leaving...
Presumably you want to (a) not let people go and train as terrorists and (b) not want them to come back once they are trained.
it really doesn't take that much training, does it?
Depends, theres the practical side of having been proper hands on trained and practiced plus the well known importance of credibility that Jihadis have in bringing others in and motivating them to action because they did go abroad and do proper stuff in the field. The Western based Jihadist movement worships its fighters who went out to wherever, trained maybe fought and came back. The myth is often bigger than the reality but it counts. The converts in particular are often in thrall to such types.
In reality most 1st time, untrained types never get to 1, actually acting and 2. fail to do as much damage as they could if they had experience.
At home they used to send them out on a hopeless job just to see what they'd do. Without going into too much detail I remember one guy sent out with a crappy sub machine gun to shoot randomly at a sanger. Half the rounds went in the air due to fail to control the muzzle climb. He could have been killed but fire wasn't returned. You also had the guys who failed to set bombs properly due to lack of training, guys who survived because a gun man failed to maintain his weapon or know what to do quickly when it jammed and so on.
Your perfect example is Boston two. Those guys simply didn't have enough practice and skills training. They could have done way way more damage in reality.
Keeping them at home and away from properly trained fighters and a place to train and hone skills has a point therefore. You can also track them at home, its a hell of a lot harder to do so if they are out in the boonies.
'On the eve of the CON primary result a UKIP donor funded ComRes Rochester poll has the purples 13% ahead'
I thought it was very telling just how worked up UKIP and their supporters on here had got about the Conservative Primary to select their candidate for the by-election, that and the fact that Reckless is going to face a local female Conservative candidate whatever the result. So no surprise they managed to get a UKIP donor to cough up for a constituency poll on the eve of that Conservative primary result to try and grab some publicity and to derail any positive media coverage the Conservatives and their candidate might get after this local primary. I saw on an earlier thread that someone had mentioned that Lord Ashcroft was holding back from doing his own constituency poll until the Conservative candidate had been selected, wise man. And because there is one vital question this poll won't answer, just how bad is UKIP's problem with women, and will it cost them yet another by-election?
With the Conservatives having selected two local females as their final choice in this constituency primary... You have to wonder if they have been monitoring and picking up some campaign tactics from the Labour party? The Labour party have been consistently putting up female candidates in their heartland by-elections where UKIP could be a threat, only for UKIP to consistently come in second. Indeed, all the political fall out of the Heywood and Middleton by-election has focussed on how Labour NEARLY lost the seat to UKIP. But what if it was the other way around, and in fact the Labour party actually hung onto the seat because it was a female rather than a male candidate challenging a male UKIP candidate? Food for thought, but I really wonder just how well UKIP might have done in the Eastleigh by-election if it had been a male UKIP candidate up against the Libdems and the female Conservative candidate rather than Diane James? Its worth remembering that in the Indy Referendum, the Yes camp didn't just have a problem with the over 55 voters, they also had a big problem with the more risk averse female vote of all ages.
Twitter Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn · 8h 8 hours ago So the Red Cross have refused UKIP's money from the #Calypso song, as it is "party political". How to make ugly escapade even uglier.
Having caught up with and followed the debate on here about Reid's awful attempt at a pro UKIP and anti mainstream politics and immigration ditty (it doesn't even deserve the term song). How in the name of the wee man did anyone in the UKIP camp think that it was ever going to be good politics to let this out of the bag to go mainstream?! Oh, and for those of you attempting to equate this awful wee attempt at unPC UKIP humour with talented artists like UB40 and 10cc from over two decades ago, shame on you!!
And talking about anti PC pop songs, it was actually Mike Reid who got Frankie Goes to Hollywood's Relax single banned from the BBC airwaves 30 years ago this year!! BBC - Banned on the run But its worth noting that it was also Frankie Goes to Hollywood who then went onto produce a far more hard hitting political message in their subsequent hit single 'When Two Tribes go to War'. Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w
You are not the target audience fitalass. Its aimed at the WWC vote where it is going to be seen as the PC liberal establishment trying to close down debate on immigration, and bullying the underdog, I would be highly surprised if this does not win UKIP more votes that is loses. At their stage in the game almost any publicity is good publicity, and anything which looks like the liberal establishment getting po-faced with people speaking out is going to win them votes.
Word to the wise... It really might be all those 'Grumpy old Tory Men' buggering off to UKIP which is most helping Dave the Tories with their detox strategy when it comes to more risk averse female voters focussed on the issue of the economy rather than charmless Farage and all things UKIP, Farage and totally unPC...
probably all those tory men buggering off to UKIP has helped Dave's much vaunted woman problem no end
Sorry, but that comment just highlights why this Reid ditty was such bad politics for UKIP. It wasn't about the PC establishment trying to close down any debate on immigration or bullying any underdog. UKIP's opponents didn't need to do a thing, this anti political/immigration ditty was so bad it consigned itself to the era of the 70's when it came to unPC bad taste!! And that is why Mike Reid has now withdrawn the song and apologised for 'unintentionally causing offence'.
You are not the target audience fitalass. Its aimed at the WWC vote where it is going to be seen as the PC liberal establishment trying to close down debate on immigration, and bullying the underdog, I would be highly surprised if this does not win UKIP more votes that is loses. At their stage in the game almost any publicity is good publicity, and anything which looks like the liberal establishment getting po-faced with people speaking out is going to win them votes.
YouGov for The Times, slights at odds with yesterdays findings...
Imagine David Cameron could not secure any renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the European Union, and the referendum was held on Britain's relationship with the European Union as it is now. How would you then vote?
42% Leave, 36% Remain, 6% Wont Vote, 16% Dont Know
Word to the wise... It really might be all those 'Grumpy old Tory Men' buggering off to UKIP which is most helping Dave the Tories with their detox strategy when it comes to more risk averse female voters focussed on the issue of the economy rather than charmless Farage and all things UKIP, Farage and totally unPC...
probably all those tory men buggering off to UKIP has helped Dave's much vaunted woman problem no end
Sorry, but that comment just highlights why this Reid ditty was such bad politics for UKIP. It wasn't about the PC establishment trying to close down any debate on immigration or bullying any underdog. UKIP's opponents didn't need to do a thing, this anti political/immigration ditty was so bad it consigned itself to the era of the 70's when it came to unPC bad taste!! And that is why Mike Reid has now withdrawn the song and apologised for 'unintentionally causing offence'.
sorry I should have added A ":)" to that.
God only knows what Mike Read was thinking... (actually that BBC sponspored beach boys travesty was almost as embarrassing)
YouGov for The Times, slights at odds with yesterdays findings...
Imagine David Cameron could not secure any renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the European Union, and the referendum was held on Britain's relationship with the European Union as it is now. How would you then vote?
42% Leave, 36% Remain, 6% Wont Vote, 16% Dont Know
YouGov for The Times, slights at odds with yesterdays findings...
Imagine David Cameron could not secure any renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the European Union, and the referendum was held on Britain's relationship with the European Union as it is now. How would you then vote?
42% Leave, 36% Remain, 6% Wont Vote, 16% Dont Know
Not sure this is a good question. He'll surely secure something or other which he will claim is a renegotiation even if it is basically meaningless
Agreed. The key question is could he sucker the public into believing his figleaf is actually a meaningful change, possibly... although a few UKIP MPs in parliament will make that heavy going.
YouGov polled "major, modest, none", so you get middle-option bias harming "none", because it feels extreme. In practice the straight "in or out" polling is probably more reliable than this. The voters will be thinking about the main question not the renegotiation, and in any case the renegotiation will be inconclusive (none to modest, but presented as major).
YouGov polled "major, modest, none", so you get middle-option bias harming "none", because it feels extreme. In practice the straight "in or out" polling is probably more reliable than this. The voters will be thinking about the main question not the renegotiation, and in any case the renegotiation will be inconclusive (none to modest, but presented as major).
Agreed, but it never seems to be put that simply. If you look at yesterdays poll for example, there is stay in, stay in as a trading block, or get out. The "stay in as a trading block" option isn't going to be on the table, but it allows people to claim a majority want to stay in, where as it would be more intellectually honest to say "the majority want to say in given an impossible set of preconditions occur".
If a pollster asked people to chose "stay in", "stay in with a million pound free hand out to everyone", or "get out" and then said "the majority want to stay in" it would be just as honest.
Mr Juncker said: "I am not prepared to change [freedom of movement]. If we are destroying the freedom of movement other freedoms will fall. I am not willing to compromise."
YouGov polled "major, modest, none", so you get middle-option bias harming "none", because it feels extreme. In practice the straight "in or out" polling is probably more reliable than this. The voters will be thinking about the main question not the renegotiation, and in any case the renegotiation will be inconclusive (none to modest, but presented as major).
Agreed, but it never seems to be put that simply. If you look at yesterdays poll for example, there is stay in, stay in as a trading block, or get out. The "stay in as a trading block" option isn't going to be on the table, but it allows people to claim a majority want to stay in, where as it would be more intellectually honest to say "the majority want to say in given an impossible set of preconditions occur".
If a pollster asked people to chose "stay in", "stay in with a million pound free hand out to everyone", or "get out" and then said "the majority want to stay in" it would be just as honest.
The Mori poll starts with a straight "Stay in or get out" question before they start probing other possible options. That's the right way to do it IMHO.
UKIP call it the Liblabcon. It's soon to be the kiplabcon. UKIP makes no mention of Common Purpose, chemtrails, fracking, depopulation, the NWO and so on. UKIP's merely more of the same sell-out to global power in the hands of a tiny cabal. The EU's only one of the devices of human serfdom. Opposing only one head of the hydra is pointless. Yet Farage makes it sound like a lovely taste of freedom is only inches away. Freemason. Friend of Israel. City Of London in his bones. UKIP might make great waves, but there will be no change, just more illusion from another conjuror.
UKIP call it the Liblabcon. It's soon to be the kiplabcon. UKIP makes no mention of Common Purpose, chemtrails, fracking, depopulation, the NWO and so on. UKIP's merely more of the same sell-out to global power in the hands of a tiny cabal. The EU's only one of the devices of human serfdom. Opposing only one head of the hydra is pointless. Yet Farage makes it sound like a lovely taste of freedom is only inches away. Freemason. Friend of Israel. City Of London in his bones. UKIP might make great waves, but there will be no change, just more illusion from another conjuror.
Far Right / racist / scapegoating politics does lend itself to reactionary thickos though, let's be honest.
It takes a bit more brainpower to work out that muslimzzz and immgrunts might not, after all, be the cause of all your problems in life.
Welcome back where have you been?
Find PB really dull when it's just endless far right trolls from UKIP spitting their unpleasant little memes about race and immigration and whatnot. Don't know where they've all come from, PB is sadly infested with them, gives the place a very nasty tone.
Far Right / racist / scapegoating politics does lend itself to reactionary thickos though, let's be honest.
It takes a bit more brainpower to work out that muslimzzz and immgrunts might not, after all, be the cause of all your problems in life.
Welcome back where have you been?
Find PB really dull when it's just endless far right trolls from UKIP spitting their unpleasant little memes about race and immigration and whatnot. Don't know where they've all come from, PB is sadly infested with them, gives the place a very nasty tone.
Reality is difficult for people with BBS
Are they really far right trolls, or people coming online to make UKIP supporters look bad? I am a UKIP supporter but I have plenty of foreign friends and colleagues. Of course immigration is my absolute concern, mainly because I am against urban sprawl and the pressures placed upon England, particularly the SE. Also, I feel a country has the right to define itself (peacefully of course). Human nature dictates why immigration should be selective and why it is the only way to make sure the public have faith in the process.
I have been to many UKIP meetings and it is far from xenophobic. They really are just ordinary people. The problem is, with the internet it can amplify alot of things, and many people can pretend to be something they are not because it is so easy to type. I do not believe all these unpleasant 'cyber kippers' are what they say they are.
Comments
and Rowland v Mitchell MP (TLJ/14/0554) will take place later today in the High Court of Justice before the Honourable Mr Justice Warby.
If you confiscate an extremist's passport, you really should be ready for them launching an attack inside the country in question as an act of revenge.
There was this weird media obsession about passports that resulted in some deeply crazy policy. It's understandable to want to stop people entering the country, but then apparently they simultaneously want to stop them leaving...
Presumably you want to (a) not let people go and train as terrorists and (b) not want them to come back once they are trained.
it really doesn't take that much training, does it?
Depends, theres the practical side of having been proper hands on trained and practiced plus the well known importance of credibility that Jihadis have in bringing others in and motivating them to action because they did go abroad and do proper stuff in the field. The Western based Jihadist movement worships its fighters who went out to wherever, trained maybe fought and came back. The myth is often bigger than the reality but it counts. The converts in particular are often in thrall to such types.
In reality most 1st time, untrained types never get to 1, actually acting and 2. fail to do as much damage as they could if they had experience.
At home they used to send them out on a hopeless job just to see what they'd do. Without going into too much detail I remember one guy sent out with a crappy sub machine gun to shoot randomly at a sanger. Half the rounds went in the air due to fail to control the muzzle climb. He could have been killed but fire wasn't returned. You also had the guys who failed to set bombs properly due to lack of training, guys who survived because a gun man failed to maintain his weapon or know what to do quickly when it jammed and so on.
Your perfect example is Boston two. Those guys simply didn't have enough practice and skills training. They could have done way way more damage in reality.
Keeping them at home and away from properly trained fighters and a place to train and hone skills has a point therefore. You can also track them at home, its a hell of a lot harder to do so if they are out in the boonies.
I thought it was very telling just how worked up UKIP and their supporters on here had got about the Conservative Primary to select their candidate for the by-election, that and the fact that Reckless is going to face a local female Conservative candidate whatever the result. So no surprise they managed to get a UKIP donor to cough up for a constituency poll on the eve of that Conservative primary result to try and grab some publicity and to derail any positive media coverage the Conservatives and their candidate might get after this local primary. I saw on an earlier thread that someone had mentioned that Lord Ashcroft was holding back from doing his own constituency poll until the Conservative candidate had been selected, wise man. And because there is one vital question this poll won't answer, just how bad is UKIP's problem with women, and will it cost them yet another by-election?
With the Conservatives having selected two local females as their final choice in this constituency primary... You have to wonder if they have been monitoring and picking up some campaign tactics from the Labour party? The Labour party have been consistently putting up female candidates in their heartland by-elections where UKIP could be a threat, only for UKIP to consistently come in second. Indeed, all the political fall out of the Heywood and Middleton by-election has focussed on how Labour NEARLY lost the seat to UKIP. But what if it was the other way around, and in fact the Labour party actually hung onto the seat because it was a female rather than a male candidate challenging a male UKIP candidate? Food for thought, but I really wonder just how well UKIP might have done in the Eastleigh by-election if it had been a male UKIP candidate up against the Libdems and the female Conservative candidate rather than Diane James? Its worth remembering that in the Indy Referendum, the Yes camp didn't just have a problem with the over 55 voters, they also had a big problem with the more risk averse female vote of all ages.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn · 8h 8 hours ago
So the Red Cross have refused UKIP's money from the #Calypso song, as it is "party political". How to make ugly escapade even uglier.
Having caught up with and followed the debate on here about Reid's awful attempt at a pro UKIP and anti mainstream politics and immigration ditty (it doesn't even deserve the term song). How in the name of the wee man did anyone in the UKIP camp think that it was ever going to be good politics to let this out of the bag to go mainstream?! Oh, and for those of you attempting to equate this awful wee attempt at unPC UKIP humour with talented artists like UB40 and 10cc from over two decades ago, shame on you!!
And talking about anti PC pop songs, it was actually Mike Reid who got Frankie Goes to Hollywood's Relax single banned from the BBC airwaves 30 years ago this year!!
BBC - Banned on the run
But its worth noting that it was also Frankie Goes to Hollywood who then went onto produce a far more hard hitting political message in their subsequent hit single 'When Two Tribes go to War'.
Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w
Imagine David Cameron could not secure any renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the European Union, and the referendum was held on Britain's relationship with the European Union as it is now. How would you then vote?
42% Leave, 36% Remain, 6% Wont Vote, 16% Dont Know
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/xi7ec8pg93/RedBoxResults_141021_EU_membership.pdf
God only knows what Mike Read was thinking... (actually that BBC sponspored beach boys travesty was almost as embarrassing)
tl;dr: No
If a pollster asked people to chose "stay in", "stay in with a million pound free hand out to everyone", or "get out" and then said "the majority want to stay in" it would be just as honest.
So that's working out well then.
40% of Tory vote
39% of Lib Dem vote
31% of Labour vote
Tories actually winning among ABC1.
UKIP hoovering up C2DE.
25% of Lib Dem to Tory, just 18% to Labour.
I have been to many UKIP meetings and it is far from xenophobic. They really are just ordinary people. The problem is, with the internet it can amplify alot of things, and many people can pretend to be something they are not because it is so easy to type. I do not believe all these unpleasant 'cyber kippers' are what they say they are.