Priti Patel & "counter terrorism offenders"

[peterm]

I watched Priti Patel on the news last night following the latest terrorist stabbing in London and she repeatedly spoke of counter terrorism offences!

Who commits these counter terrorism offences?

I've seen no references to this confusing terminology anywhere else and am beginning to wonder if I imagined it!

 

[TheDecameron]

Priti Vacant and long known for it. Promoted beyond her level of competence and a populist hardliner who will go on to make further serious errors of judgement, not to mention factual ones like this.

 

[35451]

Officers?

 

[kensalriser]

Incompetent, ill-informed and stupid. The perfect politician for post-Brexit Britain.

 

[deebster]

Isn't counter terrorism what Rik tried in The Young Ones?

 

[TheDecameron]

She’ll even make noises about the death penalty to enhance her credentials among the hangers and floggers the Tory Party remains infested with or to deflect from her failure to grasp her portfolio.

 

[Nero]

Bring back hanging*


*(c) Priti (Vacant) Patel

 

[TheDecameron]

Bring back hanging*


*(c) Priti (Vacant) Patel

Or as she might say “look, as I’ve said....bring back hangin’”.

 

[Roger Adams]

Counter Terrorism is her Majesty's Opposition.

 

[Ponty]

Shocking incident which should never be allowed to happen. Maybe time for updated treason laws?

 

[russel]

Who commits these counter terrorism offences?

!

“Police are hunting a man who caused more than £2,000-worth of damage to a Greggs bakery after dropping a £1 coin behind the counter.

The customer became aggressive when staff were unable to retrieve the cash at the shop in Christchurch, Dorset.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...nter-christchurch-dorset-police-a9299896.html

worth pointing out Priti Shiti was quite happy working for BAT who easily kill more people than ISIS do.
“First, we know that before being elected an MP in 2010, Patel worked for the PR company Weber Shandwick. Two years ago, Jamie Doward at the Observer revealed that one of her clients in this period was British American Tobacco.

Understandably, the Observer’s coverage of this fact focussed on her work for a company known for its links to the Burmese dictatorship, child labour, and its role in pushing a highly addictive drug which kills millions of people each year. While other Weber Shandwick employees were said to be uncomfortable working for such a controversial firm, the documents the Observer uncovered said that Patel was an exception: “Priti [and another employee] seem quite relaxed working with us”.”

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/da...els-background-in-britains-lobbying-industry/

 

[The Far North]

Looks like the Times agrees wiith the OP.

 

[Mullardman]

She needs a G transplant to help wiith her speakin'

 

[Lee T]

It's a complex issue which needs a complex solution & Priti Patel's error will only add to the confusion.

Something obviously needs to be done, but what?

I'm torn down the middle on this. Do we lock up for life any potential terrorist for any form of terrorism (reading & spreading terrorist literature in this case) or do we allow said individuals to roam freely amongst the public once released after serving half of their sentence.

Neither option is ideal but the government & those dealing with terror suspects need to get a move on as this situation will happen again & again under current laws.

 

[russel]

It’s the usual problem of having a process replacing thinking, there was plenty of evidence in his behaviour that should of precluded him from being released, Patel will do her usual and base her policy on whatever fvcwittery appears in the Mail comments section.

 

[Lee T]

It’s the usual problem of having a process replacing thinking, there was plenty of evidence in his behaviour that should of precluded him from being released, Patel will do her usual and base her policy on whatever fvcwittery appears in the Mail comments section.

There is a lack of leeway in these instances which prevents those assessing the individual to proceed sensibly. The law acted as it was laid down in this instance, which proves the laws need to change.

There was ample information to suggest releasing this individual was extremely dangerous to the public. 30 officers to monitor his movements tells it's own story.

 

[stevec67]

It’s the usual problem of having a process replacing thinking, there was plenty of evidence in his behaviour that should of precluded him from being released, Patel will do her usual and base her policy on whatever fvcwittery appears in the Mail comments section.

AIUI the prison service and/or probation officers said that the man was still a threat and the process (as you say) is that he was due automatic release after serving half his sentence. As a result he had to be released despite people saying "this is a really bad idea". This is of course why the police were following him so closely.

I thought that the parole principles were that after you had served half your sentence you were *eligible* for parole if, and only if, you were assessed as being no longer a threat, and the whole point was that while on parole anything more serious than a parking ticket got you sent back inside.

 

[Lee T]

I thought that the parole principles were that after you had served half your sentence you were *eligible* for parole if, and only if, you were assessed as being no longer a threat, and the whole point was that while on parole anything more serious than a parking ticket got you sent back inside.

You would have thought. Someone is liable for ignoring the information presented by those assessing this individual.

 

[davidsrsb]

I wonder if this man should actually have been in Broadmoor. Terrorism supporters who are that way because of Internet indoctrination can be rescued by education.
This case with the fake vest looks more like suicide by cop.

 

[TheDecameron]

AIUI the prison service and/or probation officers said that the man was still a threat and the process (as you say) is that he was due automatic release after serving half his sentence. As a result he had to be released despite people saying "this is a really bad idea". This is of course why the police were following him so closely.

I thought that the parole principles were that after you had served half your sentence you were *eligible* for parole if, and only if, you were assessed as being no longer a threat, and the whole point was that while on parole anything more serious than a parking ticket got you sent back inside.

Would be interesting to see how close they were when he first yanked the big knife out and bared his blue peter/ fairly liquid bottle explosive vest. Ideally you’d want to put ventilation holes in him before he put the knife in someone.