Talk:UK to step up anti-terror legislation

i'm sorry just testing the wiki system

title and more

i think the trouble is that the article coflates two related, but distinct issues, the Dame wassername speech and reaction to it, and the Police whoever's recommendations. i personally think the two can be split off into separate articles.

incidentally, note that any editor can rename an article. if there are differing views over what is right, then of course, the renaming shld be discussed, a new title agreed upon and then implemented.  — Doldrums(talk) 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two agencies involved here MI5 and the police: both bidding for resources. The 1990 Trust survey preceeded the Dame's speech by some weeks and was published on some specialist web sites. The only reaction to the Dame that is of much interest is the remark when the 1990 survey was published more generally. I didn't think that remark justified a special report. There will be plenty of reactions to the QS when it is debated.

The Rowntree Report was prepared prior to the Dame's utterance and is not a reaction.

Of course, I do not object to anyone editing anything but I have asked for reversion because the use of "Islamic terrorist" is thought to be part of the problem and to be NPOV I don't think we should use it in this specific context - "Islamic" won't appear in QS

I think interest in this will take different forms after QS debates bang on about libery of individuals (not just Islamists), human rights, and all that stuff. Though I appreciate your suggestion, I'd much prefer to let this die naturally and wait for the QS stuff to come along.

Fentonrobb 16:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Tony Blair quote is referenced in this article - ''However, Prime minister Tony Blair contested the strong connection to foreign policy, saying that the problem has "grown up over a generation"? This from recollection only, perhaps I am wrong? Sorry - yes I am!

Fentonrobb 17:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Having offered the suggestion to revert the title and haaving had no response, I made so bold as to change it myself. My apologies if this seems a bit rude, but time passes. Fentonrobb 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I generally prefer "islamic millitants/extremists/fundamentalists" etc whenver they are appropriate, and prefer to avoid "terrorist", since the former are by self-identification, and the later can be subjective. But *here* I see the point that this is *mostly* about terrorism legislation (i.e. criminal procedures). So the present title is appropriate I guess. However, flag burnning has nothing to do with terrorism, so that should be moved around a bit, maybe to the end. Nyarlathotep 21:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your point about self-identification and agree that “terrorist” is very subjective. I recollect in WW2 being invited to behave in just such a fashion as a suicide bomber should UK have been invaded - "if you are going to die anyway, you better take some of them with you". Of course we were to be "patriots" and proud to die for our country. Odd that we are discussing this so close to 11/11!

The flag burning thing is very interesting - I think both the policeman and those who burn flags think of this as being intended to terrorise people - "if they could do that to such a revered object, what would they do to someone who dissented from them?" I think some see that as even worse than murder - almost a canon law offence, a sacrilege on a par with desecrating a holy place. For that reason, I see it as part of the whole picture, ridiculous though it might seem, and I’d like to leave it where it is. It will be interesting to see how “flag” is defined in the Bill – the Lords could have some fun with that one! Sorry going on so much. Regards Fentonrobb 23:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay maybe Britian is diffrent, but we burn them all the time at protests in the U.S., which is why the republicans always try to outlaw it. I figured you guys would be more liberal. I was once told by a Welshman living in the U.S. that on guy falks day, you burn an effigy of guy falks if you like the gov, and burn and effigy of the PM if you don't.  :) Nyarlathotep 12:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)