New Law To Cover Non-Terrorist Planning Of Attacks
Discussion
The thread title is the Guardian headline, but basically means (I think) that because some planned violent attacks don’t appear to be in support of any particular ideology, they are apparently overlooked when it comes to arrest and prosecution before the event.
It all seems very odd to me. I understand that the police have certain advantages in using anti-terrorism legislation, but it must be extremely common for an arrested individual to deny that they follow any particular ‘cause’ or ideology. If the police were really unable to establish anything, and they had strong evidence - wouldn’t the individual just be sectioned?
Most of the reports on this just seem to waffle on about loners watching things they shouldn’t on the internet and ‘radicalising’ themselves, but that all seems a bit subjective to me. In the Southport case it seems that enough people were worried enough about the actual behaviour of the individual, for the proper course of action to have been detention under the mental health act. Conversely, if an individual had built up a collection of offensive weapons and had lists of targets etc. you wouldn’t need terrorism legislation or any new act to prosecute them.
It all seems very odd to me. I understand that the police have certain advantages in using anti-terrorism legislation, but it must be extremely common for an arrested individual to deny that they follow any particular ‘cause’ or ideology. If the police were really unable to establish anything, and they had strong evidence - wouldn’t the individual just be sectioned?
Most of the reports on this just seem to waffle on about loners watching things they shouldn’t on the internet and ‘radicalising’ themselves, but that all seems a bit subjective to me. In the Southport case it seems that enough people were worried enough about the actual behaviour of the individual, for the proper course of action to have been detention under the mental health act. Conversely, if an individual had built up a collection of offensive weapons and had lists of targets etc. you wouldn’t need terrorism legislation or any new act to prosecute them.
Could it just be a(nother) way of administrating/ palming off mental health failures onto the police? The Dundee killer Kyler Rattray's family had apparently also repeatedly struggled to get proper treatment for him after diagnosis with schizophrenia and psychotic episodes.
As a last resort you could call the police on someone collecting knives who really shouldn't be collecting knives but I'm not sure how this helps cover the blindspot in Prevent.
As a last resort you could call the police on someone collecting knives who really shouldn't be collecting knives but I'm not sure how this helps cover the blindspot in Prevent.
glazbagun said:
Could it just be a(nother) way of administrating/ palming off mental health failures onto the police? The Dundee killer Kyler Rattray's family had apparently also repeatedly struggled to get proper treatment for him after diagnosis with schizophrenia and psychotic episodes.
As a last resort you could call the police on someone collecting knives who really shouldn't be collecting knives but I'm not sure how this helps cover the blindspot in Prevent.
I suppose Prevent guidelines are most likely to be the structure that uncovers something potentially sinister going on with an individual (?). However, it seems very odd if at that point anyone involved would just say ‘oh well we can’t work out what the links with any known terrorist organisation are, so we will just drop it’.As a last resort you could call the police on someone collecting knives who really shouldn't be collecting knives but I'm not sure how this helps cover the blindspot in Prevent.
Rather than new laws, it would surely be better for those involved in Prevent procedures to communicate better to mental health professionals (and possibly the police)?
glazbagun said:
Could it just be a(nother) way of administrating/ palming off mental health failures onto the police? The Dundee killer Kyler Rattray's family had apparently also repeatedly struggled to get proper treatment for him after diagnosis with schizophrenia and psychotic episodes.
As a last resort you could call the police on someone collecting knives who really shouldn't be collecting knives but I'm not sure how this helps cover the blindspot in Prevent.
Could've sworn i made a post on this topic previously re recent murder in Dundee. I agree on the bold, care in the community has failed in too many cases and needs a rethink. In the meantime Police can be overwhelmed by dealing with people that should really be the responsibility of other agencies.As a last resort you could call the police on someone collecting knives who really shouldn't be collecting knives but I'm not sure how this helps cover the blindspot in Prevent.
The point is that some interventions are only lawful in the context of a specifically "terrorist" conspiracy. That's actually pretty silly. It would be better if the activity and intent primarily determined the range of interventions available, with the motivation for the activity being a potentially aggregating factor.
ATG said:
The point is that some interventions are only lawful in the context of a specifically "terrorist" conspiracy. That's actually pretty silly. It would be better if the activity and intent primarily determined the range of interventions available, with the motivation for the activity being a potentially aggregating factor.
The laws were probably considered a threat to privacy at the time but ushered through as strictly for counter terrorism. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff