Yes. Public ceremonies held weekly.

Perhaps they could be televised too

I think he just means the ones who are darker than 'warm beige' on the Dulux colour chart. What I'd like to know is, when those who refuse are 'asked to leave', where will they be sent?

"Hey, France, these people aren't British enough for us. You can have them."

They could all compete to see who is the most British, then the public could vote on who gets deported and to where.

"I see your cream tea in a thatched cottage and raise you a bout of fisticuffs in Newcastle town centre with a bloke who looked at your bird."

No. Should apply to all.

Please, please tell me you're being flippant and that this isn't a serious suggestion. With anyone else I'd assume it was a wind up, but you post so many staggeringly stupid things that I can't tell which are supposed to be serious and which aren't.

Can I just point out that this is not a terrorist attack.

At the least, it's a racial assault ( or would be if it was white on black), at worst, it's a religious attack/assault. The 2 beng questioned are religious fanatics. You find these bigots all over the world.

Rip to the soldier.

I don't want to do that.
I'm English, My parents are English, All 4 of my Grandparents are English and I don't want to go anywhere.
Problem?

At the risk of evoking Godwin but WTF?

Why should I, a born and bred citizen of the UK declare allegiance to something I may not agree with?

Not at all. You get to choose between spending the rest of your life in a concentration camp or being hung from a red, white and blue gallows whilst 'God Save The Queen' blasts out of a Chinese-made PA system.

We could televise the ceremonies at half time during footbal matches, those refusing could be buried up to their necks on the half way line and gradually trampled to death over the course of the second half.

Cool my wife is the same does she go next to me on the gallows and does my 2 and my 3 year old's join us by association?

I've just listened to a discussion on Sky News which included two Muslims: one a former extremist who fought against the Russians in Afghanistan and the other a former British soldier. Neither justified the Islamist terrorism on the basis of British government foreign policy. In fact, neither justified Islamist terrorism at all. The former extremist pointed to mosques in this country, along with some universities, where radicalisation is taking place as well as the Internet and such sites as Inquire, a radical e-mag created in the middle east aimed at getting individuals out and about making bombs in their homes and buying kitchen knives to kill westerners with. He was very frank about the existence of this radicalisation both on a local level and globally. The former soldier was at pains to reassure people that the vast majority of the 3 million Muslims living in this country were nothing like the terrorists at all and were as horrified by this attack as non-Muslims.

Radicalisation in some way or another has always occurred regardless of time or location or cause, more often in young men than in young women, and I don't think there are specific reasons for it occurring but I'm no expert on the matter. I'm just an outsider reflecting on the situation. All that is important in my view is that the government and other interested parties, including us mere mortals, continue to work with the Muslim community wherever it is represented in challenging radicalism and undermining terrorism.

Probably. Either that or they'll be sold into slavery.

It is a terrorist attack. The only reason there is any doubts about this in media reporting and from politicians is because historically there's been a general unwillingness by many states to agree upon what terrorism is, effectively because said countries - including us - have committed actions which fit the accepted definition.



This was a terrorist act, there can be no doubt about it.

Well that's a shame but at least Dally will have his version of the UK.

If that's what you meant – fine. Perhaps you should learn to write what you mean. And it should be 'haven't there'. If you're going to try to patronise, it helps to at least look basically literate.

Anyway, I await your evidence for this apparent rise in such attacks.

For clarity, in case you're struggling, I have not doubt there have been attacks and would not suggest otherwise. But some sort of massive surge? And from just one set of reactionary thugs?

Doubtless you won't read of such attacks as [url=http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10435333.Visually_impaired_man_set_on_fire_in_Brighton_street/?ref=twtrecthis[/url in your Antipodean stronghold.

I wonder whether we should describe it as a 'terrorist' attack?

Unless the perpetrators can be linked to known terrorist groups I'd tend to agree it is not a terrorist attack. This was the point I was making in my earlier posts.

However that isn't the UK's legal stance on the matter.

There isn't a universally accepted definition of terrorism anyway but in the UK murdering someone for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause is classed as terrorism by the law.

It seems too broad a catch-all to me and it could be argued the British Government is often in breach of its own law.

Even so you will still have to prove their motives where in accord with the UK laws definition and that they weren't simply mentally ill.

As usual there is a danger if it is accepted as a terrorist attack it will be used as an excuse to introduce laws that will curtail our freedoms. There is [ialready[/i at least one politician using this incident to bemoan the fact the "snoopers charter" bill was dropped. Lord Reid. He who was in favour of locking people up for 90 days without trial and he is doing this off the back of an incident the investigation of which hasn't reached any conclusions!

[url=http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10435333.Visually_impaired_man_set_on_fire_in_Brighton_street/?ref=twtrecHow about this, then?[/url

There is still no internationally accepted definition.

We in the UK have a definition as set out in the terrorism act of 2000 and if you read it we have as you say committed actions that appear to contravene our own law.



Depends on the definition and if the motives match it.

The UK terrorism act says this:

The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system

So the motive has to be one of b) or c) in section 1 and you then have to do one of actions in section 2.

Revenge isn't in there as a motive and that is the reason given by one of the perpetrators to the woman who engaged him in conversation.

Next stop is enforced stop and search, proceeded by mandortory ID cards. Thanks to tony Blair , their is very little the anti terrorism law does not cover.

This was not a terrorist attack.

It's heinous but I'm not sure if it's terrorism. Seems to be a senseless attack by somebody who is mentally ill more than anything but then that's my first time reading the story.

But will it cause terror to disabled people in that area?

If so, is it not by definition, a terrorist attack?

Incidentally, we're guessing at the mental state of the attacker. But let's fly with it for a moment. If one has been indoctrinated/brainwashed into a jihadist mentality, what is that if not a state of mental affliction?

You need to direct your fire at Theresa May. Watch as she pushes for the "snoopers charter" bill to be put back into the legislative program.

So far Cameron has shown suitable restraint in saying no such knee jerk reactions. We will see if he sticks too it and isn't bullied on this issue as he has been by his back benchers over Europe.

Here is a bit of background:

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-cameron-reject-knee-jerk[/url

This is a pretty good observation piece as well:

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-keeping-calm[/url

I particularly liked this comment:

"Whatever their religious beliefs, they are modern and secular enough to have decided to defer the fruits of martyrdom and carnal rewards in paradise. "

which is an interesting point and lends some weight to this comment from the same piece:

"Preoccupied elsewhere yesterday afternoon, I became aware of a "terrorist incident at Woolwich" quite late in the cycle. When I checked the BBC's News channel – Sky gets far too excited too quickly for my taste – [uI quickly decided that this ugly crime was likely to be a one-off by a couple of disturbed young men who joined a jihadi website class rather than one of south-east London's gangs. They might have murdered a gang rival or a shopkeeper, instead they channelled their testosterone bloodlust elsewhere.[/u I switched the TV off, watching the endless recycling of this voyeuristic stuff is bad for us all, even at my age."

"That instant assessment – a "lone wolf" attack, not part of an orchestrated onslaught directed by sinister forces abroad – may prove to be wrong, but nothing I have read or heard since then yet changes my mind."

And that is my view also. As such I don't it does anyone any favours to class this as terrorism.