It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK : Terror plotters facing tougher punishments for knife and car attacks

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 04:04 AM
link   
That's the answer to the terrorist problem, threaten them will longer jail sentences. That will really scare a jihadi hell bent on meeting 72virgins in the afterlife. The new guidelines will keep the same maximum sentence of life with a minimum term of 40 years, but the plans would see sentencing for lower level crimes set to three to six years - compared with 21 months to five years under existing guidance. www.standard.co.uk...




posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Wow! Great improvement, maybe just don't classify them as terrorist, that should do the trick.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   
We all know what needs to be done, but you can only think it. The traitors have made it illegal to say it. The only solution is a final one.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I'm guessing you mean a
to the
.


It's actually illegal to say that in the U.K.?



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64


It's not illegal to say that in the UK, no.

We still occasionally have a debate about the death penalty.

I think we technically still have the death penalty on the books as a potential sentence for the crime of high treason against the Crown. But I'm not sure.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: LondonMan

Its a ridiculous measure, which will change precisely nothing.

Unfortunately, people in our country are unwilling in large number, to contemplate a more holistic approach to solving the terror problem. Yes, the sentences for those who commit offences against our nation and its people should be tough, but reducing successful recruitment of terrorists, is a much more important goal, and in order to do that, we need our government to stop sending guns, ammunition, medical supplies, money, trainers, and intelligence assistance, to the very groups that they have been telling us for years, are our enemies. They are, of course, actually assets of our intelligence groups, and those of America. Paid patsies, nothing more. Most of them do not even know that this is the role they fill, but it is nonetheless, the case.

Most people refuse to accept this fact, because the moment they consider it, they have to be broader, smarter and more dedicated in their thinking, when it comes to solving the terror issue at home, and also whether one supports the dropping of bombs on people that our governments intelligence organisations have induced to go to war! People HATE grey space, they need binary choices only, black and white, one or zero. Throw a third way into the mix, and no one can be bothered to consider it. Too hard, too messy, not easy, can't be bothered. That is the tedious response we get from any examination of the situation, deeper than a muddy puddle.

Simply put, securing convictions and harsh penalties for those recruited to a terror outfit is entirely proper. However, if we want the terrorism problem solved, we need to vote for leaders who refuse to permit our part in the global arms trade to continue, who refuse to drop bombs on people we have armed and trained to be bogeymen, who will eviscerate and destroy the system which developed these proxy armies without the permission of the people of our country, and who will install a transparent system for decision making on matters of foreign policy, and what our intelligence agencies may and may not do in our name, with mortal consequences for any politician, intelligence asset, group within the intelligence services, or any part of the military industrial complex that we are connected to here in the UK, found to be responsible for anything remotely similar.

It goes without saying that there are dangerous people carrying out deadly attacks. However, they are being radicalised by people our government and the US government helped train for the purpose, and we need to accept that this is the case, because it is, we need to REMEMBER that this is the case when terrible things happen, and not only put the blame where it belongs for that, but also change the policies which promote the continuance of this cycle of shadow war, proxy army building, and military intelligence agencies affecting the life, limb and liberty of our people, by creating these enemies for us to fund war against.

It must end. It will not end, unless we actually attack the root of the problem... That root is not a religion or a region beyond our shores. The solution to these things begins with cleaning up our governments act, because successive governments have involved themselves in this stuff, and they had no permission from the citizenry to do so.
edit on 12-10-2017 by TrueBrit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: LondonMan

I don't understand why keep a minimum sentence? It is attempted murder should be automatically life in prison. That is of course if it's not possible to shoot them on site.

oops... I just said it



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz
a reply to: DAVID64


It's not illegal to say that in the UK, no.

We still occasionally have a debate about the death penalty.

I think we technically still have the death penalty on the books as a potential sentence for the crime of high treason against the Crown. But I'm not sure.


Not since the 90s.

That's when the last operational gallows were retired to.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: LondonMan

Sounds like your idiots have been talking to our idiots. Make something that's already illegal, illegal-er.
smh. Yeah. That's gonna stop'em.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I'm guessing you mean a
to the
.


It's actually illegal to say that in the U.K.?


Brassing up the head of an individual Islamic terrorist is not the solution that is required, and is not the one I am referencing. To call for what actually needs to be done would be deemed hate speech/crime.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz
a reply to: DAVID64


It's not illegal to say that in the UK, no.

We still occasionally have a debate about the death penalty.

I think we technically still have the death penalty on the books as a potential sentence for the crime of high treason against the Crown. But I'm not sure.


Death for the individual is not the solution I was suggesting.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

That is probably because what you are likely to suggest does not need to be done in order to solve the terror problem, and will not actually solve the terror problem, even if you managed to somehow pull it off without someone less morally degenerate than yourself, plugging you in the back of your head for your trouble.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   
A sizeable portion of the UK population are brain washed to accept whatever is given to them, hate crime legislation can and will be used against people that say what is obvious, the snowflake factor is in full effect..


Regarding the native population genocide, well it has happened and if I was to stay in the UK I would fully expect to be a minority within my lifetime, the native v migrant birth rates will show you that.


Back to the OP: You could have the death sentence and these idiots would still carry out their BS, how the hell do you stop a low IQ moron from carrying out what is told to them from a ancient book??..

72 Virgins, honestly how absurd, if it was true I hope the lot of them are bloody swamp donkies with a yeast infection....


RA

edit on 12-10-2017 by slider1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: Painterz
a reply to: DAVID64


It's not illegal to say that in the UK, no.

We still occasionally have a debate about the death penalty.

I think we technically still have the death penalty on the books as a potential sentence for the crime of high treason against the Crown. But I'm not sure.


Brassing up the head of an individual Islamic terrorist is not the solution that is required, and is not the one I am referencing. To call for what actually needs to be done would be deemed hate speech/crime.


The last people to suggest such a thing targeting specific groups of people on such a scale were hanged at Nuremberg.
edit on -050007am10kam by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
If the thought of doing what needs to be done upsets you to the point where you need resort to personal insults you do not deserve to use that ATS name of yours.
a reply to: TrueBrit



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

You surely don't mean collective punishment? I am all in for punishing the individual with maximum force, but to punish everyone is not a solution.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   
The people targeted were not killing to impose their Stone Age beliefs on the civilised world.

a reply to: Ohanka



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 07:03 AM
link   
What really needs to end is the Wahhabist House of Saud's rule of Arabia.

Once the state supporting this ideology is gone all their support dries up and the movements themselves die out.

But good luck getting anyone in the West to agree to that. All puppets for their Saudi oil masters.
edit on -050007am10kam by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   
The question to ask yourself is wether or not you believe the world would be a better place without something.
a reply to: szino9



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Oh, that was merely a hypothetical, since clearly, if you were to indulge in collective punishment, then you would be morally degenerate, and someone who is not would HAVE to end you, to protect innocent people from your fury.

Obviously, I was assuming that you would not be about to actually do anything like that, since I like to give the benefit of the doubt. One must assume that one cannot be insulted by what I said, unless one were to actually resemble a morally degenerate individual, which, to be fair, is an unsupportable position to take, regardless of what is said to you or about you. If you ARE that sort of person, I can say what I like about you, because no matter what I say and do, it cannot be nearly as bad as having genocidal tendencies, now can it?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join