I imagine they get a lot of complaints from people who simply don't like the look of the Muslim family who just moved in next door too. You can't really incriminate someone without evidence, and you can't carry out intrusive surveillance on a person without any concrete reasons to do so
This is not the point and you know it. The complaint was made about the fact that he had actually spoken out in favour of suicide bombings and so on. The least that should have been done is that these complaints were investigated rather than outright ignored for half a decade. And you must know by now that every isngle British citizen is under surveillance, the entirety of our phone conversations, email messages, social media etc. It isn't even illegal anymore so even with all that in place, it becomes very suspicious as to how these people get away with it.
Because evidence. The guy was out of the country until last week. Came home, put a vest on and went out. So he was 'known' to them. So's half of Manchester, and 90% of them are innocent. We don't just lock people up because someone's dobbed them in without any evidence, we are not a totalitarian state.
They are. However drink + drugs + prostitutes does not equal destitution. In fact theres a strong ethos in all cultures that those with power and money are above the moral guidance of their believes. Coke and hookers are not cheap y'know
Of course not but I was going off of the report which states poverty coupled with the above mentioned factors. Having said that, there may well be middle aged drinkers who are likely to be radicalised, my point is the wrong set of people and values are being targeted by the media and police forces across the country. It is a mass waste of resources and an alienation of an otherwise law abiding segment of the population.
As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or what but when someone is "known to the security forces" it means they have been targeted for full blown surveillance and investigation at some point, or were about to be targeted. We also know that security forces knew about his links to so called extremists or people on the extremist watch list, so why was he not more thoroughly investigated at the very least? There is no reason to make excuses for the security forces in this country. They owe the citizens a lot more instead of the usual narrative of "oh yeah, a terrorist attack occurred and yes, we knew about this guy but...." And then nothing happens. A few arrests are made immediately following the attacks and then eevrything gets brushed under the rug.
Did you know that khalid Masood (the Parliament attacker) was also "known to security forces"? Did you also know that in the immediate aftermath 21 people were arrested and do you know what happened which did not make a single headline? All 21 were released without charge. Now the pertinent question is, why were 21 innocent people arrested? Why were arrests not made earlier? Why was Khalid Masood, a man known for his violence not under surveillance? Why are the forces reacting (poorly may I add) rather than being proactive? These are questions that need to be asked by an independent oversight committee, sadly such a thing does not exist.
.E.
