Main Edition
US
FR
Credit: Zoe Norfolk/Getty
It’s hard to take in the events of yesterday. I was in a meeting with local residents discussing housing issues when my phone pinged and I saw the news that my colleague David Amess had been stabbed at his constituency surgery. I continued numbly and by the time I returned to my office, I learned David had died from his injuries.
David’s death is indescribably tragic. As a new MP I didn’t have the chance to get to know him well. But all the tributes from those who did describe a wonderful man and a brilliant parliamentarian. Gentle, kind, faithful, generous, committed to his constituents and constituency. His loss will be felt so keenly by his family and friends, as well as his staff, constituents and colleagues.
We are deeply saddened but also deeply shocked that such a brutal murder could take place in a routine constituency surgery, at the heart of the community that David served so well. Despite what is often written about Members of Parliament being in a Westminster Bubble, MPs dedicate an enormous amount of time on the ground in their constituencies, both on official business such as conducting surgeries and visiting schools, but also in an informal capacity, popping into the local pub, shopping at the local supermarket, chatting to residents in the park. Most MPs — and their partners and children — are very much a part of the communities we represent. It is horrible to be reminded that we are in danger in the place we call home.
Much is still unknown about the circumstances surrounding David’s death and the motives of his murderer. But, while physical attacks on politicians are mercifully rare, it is also rare that we feel truly safe. Whilst the vast majority of constituents are polite and friendly when we meet them face to face, the toxic atmosphere generated by social media – where comments about us often contain threats, personal information and abuse – ensures that MPs are constantly aware that there are many who wish us harm. Like all MPs, I could fill many pages with the online abuse that I’ve had to report or delete — on one occasion a Twitter user incited others to share my home address. I had to temporarily move my family out of our home while the police got involved.
This is not just a problem faced by MPs; a brief glance at the Twitter account of any journalist or academic will reveal the appalling state of the health of our public discourse. Vile language, threats, personal abuse, sexualised comments, demonisation and hate that would no doubt result in perpetrators’ arrest if the attacks were made in the “physical world”.
We’re in danger of losing our humanity, forgetting that behind every public profile lies a human being, who laughs, cries, loves and tries to make the best of life like the rest of us. In a free society with healthy democratic debate, we should be brutal in critiquing ideas and beliefs but protective of the people who espouse them. I fear we have turned this principle on its head, with more and more sensitivity about challenging ideas and a readiness to demonise or hate the people who take a different view.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDid it really take the brutal murder of a colleague to open your eyes to the danger faced by innocent people in all walks of life as a result of allowing radical Islam to flourish in our midst? We are all at risk of terrorist attacks and still the government ushers in boatloads of young men, daily, with no security vetting whatsoever. We’re encouraged to view them all as victims, seeking sanctuary, when many of them will go on to victimise us in our own communities. What are you going to do about it, Miriam?
Instead we will get lectures about the dangers of white supremacy. It is not a mystery why people no longer trust government and the media.
What is she going to do about it? Nothing.
The politicians are on the side of the criminals and against the victims. This is 100% obvious in how illegal migrants are given every benefit wile being allowed to prey on natives, take the wages down, take their jobs, and consume great amounts of taxes the natives have to work and pay for – and refuse to ever deport them no matter how much they hurt native citizens.
The way you tolerate all kinds of anti-social behaviors, and every manner of crime from underclass criminals, drug crime, theft, burglary, mugging, stabbing, corruption, and assault without locking criminals up for the long time they deserve shows the Politicos are the problem – they just do not care for the law abiding.
Naturally you politicos cry when your own get hurt as it hit too close to home – but otherwise you could not care less…..
Do you think the politicos who have the power to do something, will now be moved to action against the radical islamist religion, or will they punt on the issue(s) and look the other way?
but but but.. according to the writer, the politicians take their job very seriously, quote: “But I can honestly say have never ever met a group of people who work harder and who take their responsibilities more seriously than Members of Parliament, ” end quote)
This begs the question as to what job our politicos ARE taking seriously?
A few years ago, I dialed my representative about a grievous concern I had (still do because Congress punted on the issue), and of course the call taker/staff on hand, was very courteous in listening to me and even adding to the weight of my concern.
The calls and emails went back and forth sharing more information on the subject, and at some point,
the congressional office
…. Seat Warmer …
… said that I can call back and talk about the subject ANYTIME I feel the need to (emphasis on my ‘NEED’ and ‘ANY TIME’), and it struck a cord leaving me a little bit befuddled, as I really had no interest in TALKING ABOUT the subject as a person that needs counseling, which is indeed how that benevolent offer of dialogue came forth.
This brought forth my musings on this phenomena of politicos basically ‘baby sitting’ the squeakiest wheel, so as to put a damper on those voices that are attention getters, hoping that such soothing tactics will bide the issues some time until the consensus building has happened (or not – whichever the case may be) that is sufficient to move the lawmakers forward with thrust on that issue(s).
Regarding the importing radical islamists, it is a case of NIMBY (not in my back yard), essentially, as long as those religious killings happen to OTHER people, the established ingrained self-serving politicians will turn a blind eye.
Who will bet that this ‘lone wolf’ incident of an MP being murdered by a radical islamist will NOT WAKE UP and MOVE THE POLITICOS TO ACTION?!
Sir David was been taken from us violently and I’m truly sorry . Or in the words of Sadiq Khan, he has “passed away”, as if in his sleep. A very decent guy if colleagues are to be believed; even Jess Phillips couldn’t think of a reason to hate him. But you’ve taken the words right out of my mouth.
A key democratic check/balance is MP’s having to face up to the community the decisions they and others make in HoC. Why should I lose have to lose that, or see it even slightly watered down, simply because we can’t control or even count the number of serious wrong ‘uns out there?
Our natural humanitarian instincts, are certainly being tested as never before. Give MP’s stab vests and spit masks, like our police have to use.
As for the BBC. Give his family and friends a proper tribute to this man’s life. Spare us boxing-ticking guff on climate change coming, before his work for veterans when we’ve got Remembrance Sunday in a few weeks. And always spare us the anti-democratic views of Tobias Ellwood who would honour Sir David’s memory by “pausing” the very activity that he lived for.
Ms Cates is correct to say that not much is currently known about the alleged assailant’s motives. However, Channel 4 news last night was very determined to emphasise that the man was British. Special stress was placed on the word by their reporter.
Anyone may have the required papers and have sung a few bars of the national anthem, but Winston Churchill would be more East African than they are British. From where do they breathe their air? What would taking an oath mean to someone who was a convicted criminal in the country of their origin? The Poles have more cajones than, sadly, do all our elected representatives combined (ladies excluded of course).
It’s Channel 4 Nicholas. They just want to watch the country burn.
This is just one death that has attracted an inordinate amount of publicity. It is obviously a tragedy for Mr Amess’ family, yet he has been an MP since 1983 and as such has to carry some degree of responsibility for the mass immigration that has led us to this position.
What is different this time is that consequences have been visited on someone who is in some part responsible when it is invariably ordinary people who get to carry the can.
One cannot help but think that if our elites, including our politicians and members of the MSM, were to more regularly have the consequences of their decisions land closer to home we would all have to suffer less for their hubris.
In the latest episode of the long running Westminster farce Do As I Say Not As I Do, our politicians, aided and abetted by the MSM, are about to impose environmental laws that will impoverish many safe in the knowledge that their lifestyles will remain unaffected. If I was cynical I might even suspect that many of them will be earning out of it one way or another.
By the way the perpetrator is no more British than I am Somalian
Yes, I notice that Saint David of Southend was helping to organise a ludicrous COP26 Children’s Parliament as part of the never ending campaign to piss even more of our money down the toilet. Apparently he was very kind to refugees as well…
The triple killer in the Reading park in 2020 was an asylum seeker. The suicide bomber in Manchester in 2017 came from a refugee family. Given the huge numbers pouring across the Channel in the summer of 2021, we almost certainly have at least one extra future killer amongst us.
the guardian, out to defend the “real” victims of this murder… muslims
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/17/muslim-group-to-issue-hate-support-after-killing-of-david-amess
and not to be outdone, the bbc, getting the reaction from
the poor mans family…Jo Cox’s husbandhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58951887
Well now we know more and the saddest part is nobody is really surprised. be prepared for ‘mentally ill’, ‘lessons will be learned’, ‘he was known to authorities’, ‘community scared backlash’ etc to feature prominently.
Ah, yes, the backlash that has never, ever materialised.
Quite. Because in some respects we are too civilised.
It’s about time it did
12 months ago.
“Met Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu has warned the threat from far right extremism is growing rapidly, adding that 10 out of the 12 under 18s who were arrested for terrorism last year were linked to extreme right wing ideology.” Be told, Julia…
To be fair he went on to say the Prevent programme was a crock (albeit in more florid Management-speak), but…nil desparandum.. they’re changing the web-site.
I’m beginning to think the Met might not have a fantastic grip on all this.
Who are all these far right extremists? Are they in the news?
It’s government disinformation designed to get ahead of the counter radicalisation that is the inevitable reaction to their disastrous policies.
They are frequently referenced but, like Captain Mainwaring’s wife in Dad’s Army, never seen.
The usual lies told to keep the borders open and Priti Patel in a job.
Hence the decision of the Home Office not top publish any meaningful details of the report into the decades-long Grooming Scandal (claiming, according to even the Independent some 20,000 underage victims).
Clearly, we Brits are simply too excitable and liable to take the law into our own hands.
I cannot agree our politicians and MSM are never slow to tar the white population with the same brush either when it comes to abusing footballers of Stephen Lawrence
Losing our humanity? Excuse me?
What we are actually in danger of doing is once again burying our head in the sand. Stop making it a society level problem and identify the people capable of and responsible for the murder of innocent people.
Absolutely my view. We need to attribute individual blame where it so obviously lies.
“But I can honestly say have never ever met a group of people who work harder and who take their responsibilities more seriously than Members of Parliament, of all parties.”
And I have never met a more useless and corrupt bunch of people as the typical members of Government – the elected ones the worst of all. All most of them are in it for is to get rich and to have power. Sociopaths, 95% of them.
Have you looked at MPs’ pay scales compared to people in law or finance?
To read about a man like Sir David Amess, a man who stood up to the neoliberal global corporations on open borders, marriage and the family, animal welfare and the right to life. A man who stood up against violence, for the unborn child, for marriage, for strong borders, for ordinary working people and their country, their home. A man who spoke truth to global corporate power and worked tirelessly for his constituency.
And to hear how he met his end, to be murdered by an Islamic fundamentalist whilst serving his people.
A story both of hope and horror. A story about a bigger story, a story that encapsulates the existential crisis of the post-Christian West.
“A story about a bigger story, a story that encapsulates the existential crisis of the post-Christian West.”
Indeed.
Well, if one party calls the other ‘scum’, what do you expect?
It doesn’t help at all and all parties need to clean up their verbiage to avoid incitement of the very toxic fringes of their supporters and related social media. The war in Rwanda started with the ‘cockroach’ tagging of Tutsis, a guttural demonisation tactic used in many conflicts and seeping into even ‘peaceful’ countries’ ‘deplorable’/’scum’ memes, cancelling and BDS tactics. But in this case it may be less relevant given the possible terrorism motive – which withstands the above.
“All parties”? You what? Go on then. Give me a few examples of anyone other than the left calling other people “scum”.
Bit hot under the collar again Jon? You’ll see that no party is singled out in my comment precisely because there is unparliamentary language from all sides, and now is not the time to single out one party or the use of one particular word. Go ahead if you really must (but please do it on Twitter instead).
Actually Jon is right
Factually, he’s not.
Matt B.
The middle class Left have led the way in abusive language since the late 1960s and have have mocked gentility and good manners since the French Revolution. Those who were physically tough and undertook dangerous dirty work such as rugby playing miners were well mannered. The Jarrow March of the 1930s and the Aldermaston Marches of the 1950s were conducted without abusive language.
Dennis Healey was Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and now it is Angela Rayner. Michael Foot conducted intellectually robust debates with Margaret Thatcher withour resorting to foul abuse.
Those who disagree with Anthropomorphic Climate Change are called “Deniers” in order to associate them with those who deny the Holocaust.
This will keep happening until the MPs and the Media are honest and accept publicly that the danger is coming 99% from the same source. When the IRA attacked politicians the organisation was banned . So why is that not happening ?
This wasn’t caused by social media or even Political opponents calling Tories scum.
Which source would that be? Jo Cox was killed by a completely non-islamic white nationalist and supremacist. Islam may have a bit of a violence problem, but they are hardly the only ones.
Multiple incidents of trucks mowing down passerby’s
Rape grooming gangs targeting thousands of girls
Bomb attacks, knife attacks
Hundreds taking flights to join a murderous religious militia
White nationalists and supremacists, all of them.
According to classical Greek thinkers ‘Not all the people who do political violence are muslims’ is not the same as ‘All the people who do political violence are not muslims’. It is known as ‘logic’.
Most terror attacks, grooming gangs, etc are from one group X that’s 3-4% of population….
But one off incident commited by a member of group Y that’s 90% of the population…
Proves that both X and Y equally have a violence problem.
Exceptional logic indeed.
Rasmus is just a bigot, unfortunately.
They called me that on the Guardian too. But then my arguments are equally good (or bad) whether I am a bigot or not.
Why call someone a name instead of sharing where you think they have erred so that we can all understand ?
A lecture on logic from the person who responded to a comment that 99% of terrorist attacks in this country are carried out by one source by pointing out a single example of one that wasn’t.
OK, let’s be serious.
We started this discussion because an MP had just been killed. We have had two MPs murdered in the past five years, one of them by a self-confessed white supremacist. The other by a person where all we know for sure is that he was of Somali descent. OK, I also suspect it was religion-related this time, even if we do not know the precise motive yet, but whatever, exactly, is causing people to kill MPs, Islam is clearly not responsible for 99% of it. So I object to someone taking this tragic event as an excuse for riding his hobby-horse.
There are other problems related to Muslims in the UK, to be sure. There is a general terrorism problem related to Islam (political or religious as the case may be), which is why there is the Prevent program among other things. And there may well be a particular subtype of sexual exploitation rooted in cultural differences with Muslim groups, but sexual exploitation of minors is something that all ethnicities do, and I highly doubt that Muslims come anywhere near being in the majority there.
Besides, who are you going to ban? There is a significant Muslim minority in the UK. Like it or not that is not gong to change (you are several generations too late for that). Blaming them all, en bloc, as terrorists is just going to push more of them into being enemies. To get some kind of peace you need to convince most of them to join up with the rest of socierty and help suppress the terrorism, much like the big left-wing parties and trade unions helped to squeeze out the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof lot, back then. So, yes, tell the truth – calmly – and stop saying that ‘the problem is Islam’, It is incorrect. Even worse, it is counterproductive.
No, I’m not having that. It’s you who is framing the problem as two dead MPs, one killed by a right wing murderer and one killed by an Islamist murderer, thereby creating a level playing field on which to hold a discussion about the safety of MPs. Most people who are not utterly blinkered would see yet another Islamist terror attack to add to all the other Islamist terror attacks in the equivalent time period. The problem most certainly is Islam.
To each his framing. Just as an example: The Rotherham child abuse scandal obviously involved the attitudes of Pakistani immigrants towards ‘available’ local girls as an important factor. It would be wrong to deny it. That said, I do not think it is helpful to view this either as ‘just another example of bad Muslims’ or ‘just another example of sexual exploitation’. Something similar could be said for the current murder.
“To get some kind of peace you need to convince most of them to join up with the rest of society”
But many of them reject Western culture.
Ed Husian, a respected Muslim academic, embarked upon a tour of Britain’s mosques, and in his subsequent book, concluded that 40% of them supported the Taliban.
And in his overall conclusions on the state of the Muslim community in Britain, he admitted to being very despondent over the willingness of a substantial section to integrate.
You are quite right – this is an extremely difficult problem, and it will not be solved quickly. It would be better to have avoided the problem in the first place, but it is there and it will not go away. I still do not see any other realistic aim than a cohesive British society that somehow or other includes the various immigrant groups. What would you do?
PS. One of my favourite proverb is from the military: “You should always make it easy for your enemy to do exactly what you want him to do“.
You have at least recognised that there are too many Muslims living here .
So why accept ever more ?
It may benefit the Unilever board that more and more Muslims come to the UK . Their future profits depend on demographic growth and Muslims are fast breeding . This may be why they approved the attacks on Pritti Patel by their Ben and Jerry’s woke ice cream .
But most people would rather this stopped .Why can’t they get what they want ?
I have no particular strong views on immigration, either way. Arguments for: humanitarian and labour market. Arguments against: social cohesion and social costs. Confusing. And the not particularly fascistic country of Denmark has some extremely draconian policies here. But no matter how draconian an immigration policy you want, it will not change the situation that there are already significant minorities of various ethnicities in the UK, with UK passports. No immigration policy can change that. Like it or not, for a peaceful and democratic future the most important task is to find a way where we can all feel we belong here, together.
So what did you mean when you stated in regard to Muslim extremism ‘this is an extremely difficult problem and it will not be solved quickly ,It would be better to have avoided the problem in the first place ,but it it’s there and will not go away ‘
The implication is obvious that we let too many Muslims come here to live, but you shy away from your own conclusions when they are pointed out .to you .
It’s as if the liberal idealist is at war with the rational pragmatist within
It would absolutely be a nicer situation not to have to deal with very different and somewhat hostile groups within the nation. Still, I am too young to have been taking decisions back then, so I do not really want to get carried away on this. What could realistically have been done differently, back then? What would the consequences have been, economic or political? What does it matter? We are where we are. Why go on about ‘too many Muslims’ when it is too late to do anything about it, and it upsets people and makes it harder to deal with the situation such as it is? If you want to discuss making certain kinds of immigration harder, in order to reduce marriages to imported cousins, and/or introduce a preference for home-grown imams, that would at least address the problems of today instead of those of the past. Denmark does it, but it is of course not without costs there and might be worse here. But telling a significant group of UK citizens that they do not have the moral right to be here is simply not very smart.
In the 1940s to 1970s there was few problems with integration from those with a Pakistani/Indian Muslim background.It is the rise of the Arab Muslim Bretheren (founded in 1920s ) which took off post 1973 Yom Kippur War funded by Saudi- Wahabi money is the problem.
When was the furore about that headmaster asking that they children should integrate more ,and being sacked ?
Late 1980s or early 1990s in Bradford.
As a German journalist found on a tour of German mosques. Constantin Schreiber had the huge advantage of speaking Arabic, which hardly any of our politicians, police, civil servants, academics, journalists, pundits, etc have learned. They have to blindly accept whatever shite they are fed about the Religion of Peace….as per Teresa May after the Westminster attack.
https://enqantara.de/content/constantin-schreibers-controversial-mosque-report-outside-islam-0
Jews in Britain for the most part have British names and give their kids British forenames. Same story with every immigrant group back to the Huguenots.
Asians are on the third generation and they’re still calling their kids Muhammad and Ayshe. They’re the one and only exception.
Why won’t they integrate? And if they won’t, why do they want to live here?
We didn’t have this discussion just because “two MPs were killed.” It’s just the latest in a long line of incidents.
Thanks though for parading the usual apologist rubbish – equating them with other religions, “not all muslims”, blah blah.
To be serious, you have to first accept Islam is a problem – which should be evident by the very meaning of the word.
It is not a religion, it’s a fascist political belief. And worse – it binds followers to follow the fascist beliefs laid down in the book to the letter, it enforces small children to be indoctrinated by telling them from small age that unbelievers are evil and meant to be burn in hell, it has massive money backing it, and apologists like you making excuses.
The murder of Cox was because she and her husband Brendan were supporting ,or rather agitating for , ever more migration of supposed refugees (mainly Muslim) to the UK .
Calling the perpetrator a white supremacist is just a pc smokescreen to disguise the complete reasonableness of the guy’s concerns , even if we deplore his actions .
Islam IS a supremacist ideology . A proportion of all Muslims are going to want to enact the holy war enjoined on them by their religion .
Agreed – though I would like to see the different groups taking more responsibility for their ‘own’ since, in theory , they will know them better…
It would be nice, yes. The research shows that for every individual who takes violent action there are many more who share this mentality or tacitly support it. Each ‘lone wolf’ exists in an entire ecosystem of fanaticism.
They are quick off the mark to say he is believed to have been ‘self -radicalised ‘
What does that even mean ?
Back in the day, when the Red Brigades and the Baader-Menihof gang were killing and kneecapping for the revolution, a lot of left-wingers just kept talking about the evil and oppression of capitalist society, the need for revolution, and how understandable it was that the downtrodden were fighting the system. That talk was not new, but when people start killing for the same words you have to take sides, either for or against the killings. Otherwise you are complicit in the next set of murders. I would put that responsibility on Muslims as well, to distance themselves from the murderers. And I would most certainly put it on you. Please stop making excuses for terrorist killings
The Joe Cox case was a single killing and I wasn’t trying to excuse it .
But to avoid misunderstanding I have edited the post .
this isn’t a definitive source but is a useful one, just have a look through the identity of the perpetrators going back years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_2021
If you are trying to convince me that Islamists carry out more than their share of the terrorism and violence in the world, you can stop. I have known and accepted that for years. What we are discussing here is whether the murder of David Amess is ‘just another muslim atrocity’, or it is better seen as part of the same problem as the murder of Jo Cox.
Cowards like yourself are the problem
From my time BTL in The Guardian I am happy to be called misogynist, transphobic, heteronormative, bigoted, and a few other things I forget, but ‘coward’ is a new badge for the collection. If you actually mean anything by it, feel free to elaborate. If it is just that you have a low opinion of me, I shall try to bear it with fortitude.
Let me clarify
A. You don’t have the guts to challenge your rigid PC beliefs such as “all cultures are equal”
B. You don’t have the guts to acknowledge when people point out glaring gaps in your “logic”
C. You don’t have the guts to hold “protected” groups to the same standards as others.
And on the final point – if you had gangs of evil white people going around stabbing random muslims or blowing up muslim congregations, if you had middle aged white men gangraping young muslim girls, passing them around with no action by the police…..
If the numbers were even 1% that of the victims of Islam, I can just imagine the reaction of people like you….and no, “everybody does it” or “you are being racist against whites” wouldn’t be it.
You seem to have misunderstood me. You are too quick to jump to conclusions and/or I am not being particularly clear. Anyway:
A: All cultures are not equal. Or, rather, they may be equal in theory, but even if I cannot prove it is superior I still prefer my own and am willing to fight for it.
B. All I am saying is that Muslims are not the only people doing crimes, and that not all crimes committed by Muslims can be blamed on their religion. That does not exclude that Muslims commit more terror than other groups (these days, it was Irish Catholics once) or that their religion has something to do with that. The logic holds. I also think it makes more sense to see this latest murder together with the murder of Jo Cox rather than with the long list of terrorist plots (until we have specific reasons otherwise). I may be wrong, but there is nothing illogical about it.
C. I do hold ‘protected’ groups to the same standards to the best of my ability. I just do not believe in blaming the entire group for individual actions. If you do not believe me, let me say that I am quite tolerant of the historical misdeeds of my own group and culture as well. I do not hold all right-wingers responsible for Anders Bering Breivik either (though I do expect them to condemn terror clearly and not indulge in ‘understanding’ it).
Final. I have an excellent counterexample. Men commit the vast majority of crimes, rapes, violence. The facts are not in dispute. I would even concede that the male role and socialisation may have something to do with this. Both modern feminists and older ones like Julie Bindel blame all this on men as a group, demand that we accept our collective guilt, put a stop to this violence, and sign on as auxiliaries (‘allies’) in fighting for remaking men in a feminist image. And I *still* refuse to see this as a men’s problem – it is a human problem – and think that Julie Bindel (for all I rather like her personally) is being misandrist.
I am not one of the woke. Honest.
Parts of the Irish community supported the IRA while working in Britain and large parts of the left wing student population supported Red Army Faction and other terrorist groups. Support came via raising funds, providing safe houses, use of cars and turning a blind eye.
Over 500 innocent European civilians have been slaughtered over the past 10 years in Islamist attacks, not to mention the thousands who sustained life-changing injuries and trauma.
And yet you call that a “bit of a problem”?! Jeezus wept.
“In October 2018, Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, the national police lead for Counter-terrorism, stated that 80% of the counter-terrorism investigations in the country – which were at a record high of 700 – were connected to the “Islamist Jihadist threat”.
As at June 30, 2021, there were 220 people in custody for terrorism-connected offences in Britain. As the Home Office stated, “the vast majority (70%) were categorised as holding Islamist-extremist views; a further 22% were categorised as holding Extreme Right-Wing ideologies”.
On BBC Radio 4’s Today, the head of MI5 stated, “Even during the pandemic period which we have all been enduring for the past two years, we have had to disrupt six late-stage attack plots”. McCallum warned the British public, “the terrorist threat to the UK, I am sorry to say, is a real and enduring thing”.
So what would constitute a “big problem” in your view?
Over 500 innocent European civilians have been slaughtered over the past 10 years in Islamist attacks, not to mention the thousands who sustained life-changing injuries and trauma.
And yet you call that a “bit of a problem”?! Jeezus wept.
“In October 2018, Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, the national police lead for Counter-terrorism, stated that 80% of the counter-terrorism investigations in the country – which were at a record high of 700 – were connected to the “Islamist Jihadist threat”.
As at June 30, 2021, there were 220 people in custody for terrorism-connected offences in Britain. As the Home Office stated, “the vast majority (70%) were categorised as holding Islamist-extremist views; a further 22% were categorised as holding Extreme Right-Wing ideologies”.
On BBC Radio 4’s Today, the head of MI5 stated, “Even during the pandemic period which we have all been enduring for the past two years, we have had to disrupt six late-stage attack plots”. McCallum warned the British public, “the terrorist threat to the UK, I am sorry to say, is a real and enduring thing”.
So what would constitute a “big problem” in your view?
It was a three-line post, with the main point that acting against Islam was not a suitable reaction to killing of MPs – whch I still think. I just did not want to get into the general question of how much terrorism there is, or how much of it is Islamic.
For the rest your figures look correct, and yes, it is a big problem.
But all you’ve done on here is trivialise it.
Aren’t 500 murders sufficient for you?
A bit??
Why is this comment voted down? Radicalised Islamists are under scrutiny but it would be foolish to not be alert elsewhere.
He objected to Cox and her (unfaithful ) Irish sex pest husband professionally agitating to bring ever more Muslim ‘refugees’ to the Uk .
His concerns are reasonable
How many attacks by the far right can you name in the last 20 years? I can only think of the Jo Cox murder and the van driving into an elderly man in London. How many murdered have been carried out by extreme Islamists in that time?
This isn’t to have a go at Muslims, 99% of which will be appalled by this latest murder, but there’s no doubt they have a serious problem within their sector of society
More like 70% than 99%.
Yes, doubtful the perp was following the party conferences; no party we are party to anyways.
When are we going to wake up to the fact that social media brings out the worst in many people?
Social media and the internet generally were supposed to give a voice to the ordinary people, but I sometimes wonder whether that voice is one we want to hear. I know that sounds cynical and maybe even elitist, but I can’t help thinking sometimes whether the harm done by all this interconnectiveness is greater than the good. I say this as someone who has used online resources for study and, especially recently, to keep in touch with friends; but I think about all the pornography, the ways in which people who have, let’s say, unique preferences are put into touch with others so that they begin to believe that they are normal (and here I mostly mean pedeophiles), the trolling, and the hateful bile spewed at opponents and I wonder if its all worth it.
You have said what I wanted to say but put it far more eloquently than I did. I fear for the young, I really do. Some can’t even eat a meal in a restaurant without taking a photo of it first!
Wonder what they would have made of living when a phone was in a box at the end of the road?!
They would have been far happier.
I don’t believe that the abuse that is hurled about on social media comes from “ordinary people”. These people do not represent the vast majority of the population. Social media allows people who have various mental problems to express what they would not usually be allowed to express in normal society. Don’t think that trolls represent ordinary people.
Unsocial media is absent of all the cultural restraints that are present in face to face communication.
But it is here the point surely is to manage it. Undoubtedly it can be controlled (as it increasingly is across the world) but no society can afford to forgo technology like this completely if it doesn’t want to end up like pre-colombian Indians blown away by European cannons.
Thinking these technologies can be put back in the bag is not really very realistic.
Absolutely. And, I fear, it creates monsters, who enjoy being nasty because they can hide behind anonymity. Seem to think they can say as they please, and deliberately hurt other people.
High time the companies involved with any social platform took responsibility for what gets transmitted.I am thinking of the Dark Web, someone, somewhere knows who is behind it all..
Is Allah on social media?
If He was he could use it to tidy up His image. He’s just had another bad day in the PR department in Norway. And possibly another in this country.
Of course, He could use social media if He feels an apocalypse coming on.
I understand he is reluctant to show his face on Instagram.
People to whom he speaks directly are.
No, but more than enough of his earthly representatives are.
Human communication has always been, to a large extent non-verbal, relying on body language (and possibly pheremonal communication).
When someone is upset or discomfited by what is being said, the speaker naturally tones down what is being said. When non-verbal cues are removed via online communication, this doesn’t happen. In addition, the anonymity also encourages extreme behaviour.
Several years ago I said that social media could lead to a breakdown of civilization as we understand it. I haven’t changed my mind. The USA is split into 2 tribes who barely speak to each other and appears to be on the precipice of civil war.
The UK is not a million miles from the same. What chance have we when the deputy of the Labour party refers to Conservatives as scum (without censure). On many Labour protest matches there are banners near the front saying ‘Kill Tory Scum’. Presumably many on the left will be pleased about this death.
A friend said a while ago to me that “the problem is that we think that they (Labour) are wrong, they think that we are evil”
We need to communicate in person with other people, to listen to their views however much we disagree, If we don’t begin doing this soon, I fear that we will enter a new dark ages, characterized by authoritarian governments and intolerance.
This very much accords with how I think the brain works. It finds patterns in all the senses and makes associations that add context.
Have you read Tom Chivers article on mental disorders and social media? I’m shocked at what some people write, I came across a comment by a journalist who writes for the Independent, and when his point of view was challenged he tweeted back that he hoped his opponent would get cancer. No normal person says things like this. Social media has allowed people with personality disorders to express themselves in ways that would usually be unacceptable. Anything goes now, there are few restraints on individuals, society has lost its moral compass, and this allows for extreme behaviours.
What’s with the “we”?
I don’t wish any harm on politicians despite the harms they often visit on me.
“We” aren’t murderers and most of us don’t call politicians “scum” either.
Stop importing people from failed Muslim states and improve your security immediately.
Very well said. We are very much in danger of losing our humanity, and it’s largely due to digitisation of everything from political debate to toasters. It feels like we are at a very dangerous, pivotal moment – do we keep trading away meaning for illusory power, abandoning our individual instincts and common sense in order to follow the latest online fads, recursively mimicking other members of our particular tribe, and doing everything that our technology permits us to attempt to prolong our lives; or do we reassert ourselves as masters of the electronic machines, as free-thinking unique, fallible individuals capable of agency and of love, grounded in our local communities, respectful of difference, mindful of our own fortunes and the misfortunes of others, intent living and helping others to live our best, long, healthy lives, and on maintaining the Earth’s beauty and safeguarding its natural resources, but not washed away by utopian theories and ideals which can, as we have seen time and time again, cause individuals to commit horrific individual crimes and humanity to descend into systematic destructiveness – all in the name of the supposed good.
RIP Sir David Amess MP.
I was informed by BT that my telephone has to be via Broadband now, no longer a separate line. Don’t even ask if I am furious! No consultation, no if it please you dear customer, just a blank take it or leave it approach.
Maybe you should replace him ? I would certainly vote for you !
I see no other way out of this than deportation. Make it tougher to get British citizenship, and have a no tolerance / deport policy for those who commit rape, murder, terrorism. Those parents threatening the Batley teacher? Deport them. We aren’t going to defeat Islamic extremism by being nice. I have no problem with Muslims who integrate and follow the law, btw.
Before anyone bites me, remember the UK bans many ‘right-wing’ personalities from entering. The UK can, and does, deport and refuse entry. The time for excuses and weakness is over.
How are you going to deport a second generation immigrant whose only citizenship is British?
Our foreign aid budget should be used far more creatively. We could fund a supermax prison in any number of countries.
Don’t mention the religion
According to the author, the ‘i’ word you’re looking for is actually ‘Instagram’.
Exactly it’s part and parcel of the big lie that terrorists all self -radicalise on the internet rather than at their local mosque ,
Blame it on the internet rather than the ideology of the migrants (Islam ) and the ideology of the government class (multiculturalism )
as an american i do not understand exactly what you are going through, however i do believe that we in the west need to learn some sort of self defense. this stuff is not going to be stopped with hand wringing and laments.
Clearly your much-vaunted ‘right to bear arms’ doesn’t prevent mass immigration, legal and illegal.
There’s a flaw at the heart of democracy; it pays business interests to import people and then it pays politicians to co-opt the new people as voters.
More customers in the checkout, then more voters at the ballot. The losers are the natives, but they have nowhere else to put their votes.
So what do you want then? A totalitarian government?
No. I want a proper choice when I vote.
If someone like the attacker in this case forms a plan to stab an MP, then he or she will be able to approach closely, and use the element of surprise. Amess who will have lived a wholly peaceful life for his 69 years, so would be unlikely to be able to effectively defend himself, even if he had given time to self-defence instruction. (It’s interesting to reflect that 60 years ago or so, many would have lived through the war, perhaps fought in it (as did my father between 1940 and 1945), or been in a later conflict, or national service.)
I see no easy solution, given the two developments of social media with its power to escalate emotions, and the propagation of an extreme Islamism, especially when it can reach mentally unstable people.
Hmm. No mention of Islam, as if that isn’t the biggest piece of the problem. There is an inherent conflict between the 7th Century and modern times that requires an iron hand without the velvet glove.
This is indecent obfuscation.
Nope it’s extremely clear.
If you don’t hear the skin colour within the first three lines, its extremely apparent that
A. The killer is not a white male. B. This is another of those 99% of terror attacks commited by the RoP.
Killed? But according to Sadiq Khan, he merely “passed away”.
It’s not a matter of humanity at all, the problem is rather the naivety of all the European countries that have transformed the couple police-justice from an institution that works to ensure the security of the people to an organization for the rights of the guilts. In matters of politics stupidity always ends in tragedies.
It’s not so much the stoking of fear as the abandonment of our society in stoking cheer. The stoking of fear may have a direct political aim. And the brutal murder of a very fine man and MP is still being investigated. But as a society, we are weighed down by bad news and grimness. Such that, on occasion, after a piece of bad news, one just wants to turn the TV off or put on some music. Or turn the TV on to watch some old comedy or … some old Bond. But these days, as of late in fact, our actors swan around sporting grim or pained expressions: as evidenced by their conspicuous appearance on many billboard posters for TV shows and movies.
What do the very young think about adults when they see this elevation of the great and the celebrated when out and about? Is that confirmation to them that the future is grim and that we ought to somehow pay for it? And revel in its constant dramatisation for good measure? At least in the 1920s and 30s, a very grim time, what with no antibiotics, hence TB rife, and no TV, pretty much whatever was on in picture houses and billed in theatres was there to raise up the audiences, throw them cheer. It was not the misery guts fare that one easily runs into today, in our technology age. Stoic or hopeful migrants to the New World in the 1920s and 30s might have at least appreciated the bright lights and zest of Broadway. Among several of them, many gravitated towards this cheerier aspect of America, with some leap-frogging their way into new areas of life, unimaginable to their own parents, where they discovered talents they had never known they had. Today, however, in the glorious West, the commissars of identity politics would be there, on the quayside so to speak, to greet new arrivals and direct them to their familiar stations. The more grim life is portrayed, for example on TV or in the media, the easier it is for the hard left to pigeon-hole people. But easier too for the hard right! So why should society revel in grimness? I know THIS is a grim time now. But, in referring to actors and actresses earlier, the only actor, star of stage and screen, who was smiling of late in the public view, earlier in the week in fact, was the ninety-year-old William Shatner. A little tonic and a little cheer. God bless the MP’s family.
If people who live in a constituency are able to meet their MP face to face, it would remind them, as Ms Cates found herself on being elected to the Commons, that politicians are persons like themselves. It would prevent anyone holding the daft ideas they can have about politicians.
It’s not possible to meet anyone online. It would be a loss to civilised behaviour if MPs stopped their face to face surgeries. As for unsocial media, it’s the very absence of face to face communication that enables the threatening behaviour.
Ms. Cates, re: We are in danger of losing our humanity;
If we lose our humanity, it will be because the perfectly fallible humans ‘elected’ (more equal to ‘selected’) to serve the public have not done the extra effort needed to address the REAL URGENT issues at hand, in this case rampant lawlessness allowed by foreigners in the name of ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’ and aiding those in need as ‘asylum seekers’.
It is quite obvious that you are basically another naive and clueless ‘selected’ politico diverting and couching the real issue of religious bigotry that turns ordinary empathic humans into savages as something that is caused by bitter Internet dialogue.
You should be grateful that there is an Internet of things where people can blow off steam instead of as in yesteryear where one would just go out and sucker punch their victims of rage.
Which brings up the question, did this murderer know how to blow off steam online, or was he functioning like a savage would before the Internet of things came along?
‘We’re in danger of losing our humanity, forgetting that behind every public profile lies a human being, who laughs, cries, loves and tries to make the best of life like the rest of us. In a free society with healthy democratic debate, we should be brutal in critiquing ideas and beliefs but protective of the people who espouse them. I fear we have turned this principle on its head, with more and more sensitivity about challenging ideas and a readiness to demonise or hate the people who take a different view.’ This is the world you’ve led us to. Back when Christianity and politeness were both the common currency of this country, things were radically different. But we’ve left all that behind, haven’t we! We’re modern, progressive and thoroughly immoral now, so enjoy it.
Things was radically diff’rent. Well, it was never going to be easy being a good Christian when the chips were down. Remember, the Roman Empire, persecutor of Christians, would eventually embrace Christianity.
I know, let’s blame it all on Winston Churchill. He was the chap that converted the Royal Navy from coal to oil and therefore needed to establish strategic mastery over the Middle East.
The solution is Frack, Baby, Frack, so we don’t care about the Middle East any more.
Unfortunately, all the Good People know that Oil is a Fossil Fuel and therefore Eevil and therefore we have 12 or 10 or 14.2 years the Save the Planet.
I am frankly horrified by many of the comments I have read. I was brought up near Belfast during the troubles of the 1970s. I know from first hand experience that it is irresponsible and reckless to heap blame on any religion. It so easily feeds a sickening cycle of violence. I beg you to stop
Why are religious ideologies exempt from criticism ? People are allowed to talk about the violence and supremacist ideology inherent in nazism but not in Islam . You do realise not talking about some aspect of reality won’t make it go away ?
If we had had the discussion we’re having now about the reality of Islam 50 years ago perhaps something could have been done , Remember Ray Honeyford
Comments like those are similar to the ones I grew up with. Nothing has changed
This article has generated a considerable volume of comment. However, not surprisingly no practical solutions have been suggested.
Unfortunately, given that there is no organised Muslim Liberation Army and most of the Muslim terrorists appear to be hashish addled lone wolves taking effective steps to head off the attacks is not easy. Is stopping and searching random Muslims, interning all Muslim expressing critical views of western society or adopting a Chinese approach to the Muslim minority likely to be effective, practical or popular- hardly.
So we are left with a few tweaks to security such as body searches of all visitors to MPs which will not be popular and merely move the attacks to softer and more accessible targets. Unlike the case of the IRA there seem to be no practical concessions to potential Muslim terrorists that are likely to materially reduce the problem apart perhaps from declaring the UK an Muslim Caliphate which is likely to generate even more terrorism from those opposed to such an undemocratic move.
We are left with the present semi-effective surveillance of potential terrorists that from time to time will prove ineffective just as we have no foolproof solution to “male violence” and other perennial problems beyond remaining vigilant and taking what sensible precautions that we can. Some things just have to be endured until they disappear. Cheerful pessimism is the order of the day.
We need to ban the advertising based business model for social media. Let it be a service for keeping in touch with our friends, which we have to pay for individually. Then users themselves would choose what to read, instead of being controlled by the Algorithm that pushes the worst possible stuff at them.
It was the advertising based business model that caused Jo Cox to give her life in vain. People who had thought they were signing up for a service to keep in touch with their friends received unsolicited messages telling them that the entire population of Turkey would be coming to the UK if we remained in the EU. So they voted to leave. And so millions of lives were ruined.
The solution is to monetize social media platforms – give them a subscription-base payment model, maybe $5-$10 a month. Extra for a blue tick mark.
“The entire population of Turkey would be coming to the UK if we remained in the EU. So they voted to leave. And so millions of lives were ruined.“
Do you seriously believe that? Are you really putting forward that as concise explanation of the reasons for and consequences of the 2016 referendum?
Sorry SOC – I voted Leave without receiving a single unsolicited message about Turkey. And I don’t think Jo Cox gave her life – it was taken from her.