London Bridge Incident

Chat about anything not specifically aviation related
Finningley Boy
Posts: 3169
Joined: Sun 12 Oct 2008, 10:07 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Finningley Boy »

Paul_Reflex wrote:Berf - The rehabilitation interventions are not the only area of work. In a case such as this one appears to be, where custody is coming to an end, there would also be many risk management activities such as: MAPPA conferencing, Prevent channel panels and multi-agency supervision. The offenders are also subject to stringent licence conditions which can and would include residency at approved premises, non-contact conditions, exclusion zones, electronic tagging and inspection of electronic devices. I did not mean to give the impression that the criminal justice system leaves people in a semi-treated state and just hopes that there are no lapses into offending behaviour. I can’t comment on this case, but I would expect that in a terrorism case where reoffending occurs then there would be offence paralleling behaviour which was observable by colleagues supervising the case which could have led to actions such as a recall to prison. This system seems to have been a terrible and unusual system failure and there will be much to learn about the causes.

I haven’t done any work with extremists for a few years, as I work in a regional sex offender intervention unit, but whenever I talk to colleagues working in this area I am constantly impressed by the quality of the work going on and the level of resources available. I think you would feel a lot less cynical if you could see this too.

Lastly, because I work with sex offenders, I am well aware that a lot of people would prefer to see offenders either locked away for ever or disposed of in some other way. You say that maybe we don’t know what we’re talking about, but we have massive amounts of academic research and decades of programme development to draw on so I find this difficult to accept. I have spent nearly 20 years at this coal face, dealt with things that you wouldn’t believe and have suffered quite significant consequences as a result. I know that this work has saved lives, verifiably in a few cases. By all means question this system, that’s what living in a democracy is all about, but please don’t belittle the work or the expertise and dedication of my amazing friends and colleagues who undertake it.

I have no wish nor intention to belittle your good self nor the esteemed bunch you work alongside, however, have you ever considered giving these offenders a good bogwashing? Or do sanctions go no further than the naught step? :smile:

FB :cuppa:
I have danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings!

User avatar
T_J
Posts: 2868
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 6:57 pm
Location: Lincs

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by T_J »

Well done those very brave people for taking on this terrorist. The pole is a Narwhal tusk taken from the wall of the Fishmongers hall.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwbm1GGRopQ[/youtube]

Berf
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu 24 Aug 2017, 7:12 pm

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Berf »

Paul_Reflex wrote:Berf - The rehabilitation interventions are not the only area of work. In a case such as this one appears to be, where custody is coming to an end, there would also be many risk management activities such as: MAPPA conferencing, Prevent channel panels and multi-agency supervision. The offenders are also subject to stringent licence conditions which can and would include residency at approved premises, non-contact conditions, exclusion zones, electronic tagging and inspection of electronic devices. I did not mean to give the impression that the criminal justice system leaves people in a semi-treated state and just hopes that there are no lapses into offending behaviour. I can’t comment on this case, but I would expect that in a terrorism case where reoffending occurs then there would be offence paralleling behaviour which was observable by colleagues supervising the case which could have led to actions such as a recall to prison. This system seems to have been a terrible and unusual system failure and there will be much to learn about the causes.

I haven’t done any work with extremists for a few years, as I work in a regional sex offender intervention unit, but whenever I talk to colleagues working in this area I am constantly impressed by the quality of the work going on and the level of resources available. I think you would feel a lot less cynical if you could see this too.

Lastly, because I work with sex offenders, I am well aware that a lot of people would prefer to see offenders either locked away for ever or disposed of in some other way. You say that maybe we don’t know what we’re talking about, but we have massive amounts of academic research and decades of programme development to draw on so I find this difficult to accept. I have spent nearly 20 years at this coal face, dealt with things that you wouldn’t believe and have suffered quite significant consequences as a result. I know that this work has saved lives, verifiably in a few cases. By all means question this system, that’s what living in a democracy is all about, but please don’t belittle the work or the expertise and dedication of my amazing friends and colleagues who undertake it.


Paul I have no intention of belittling the work of people such as yourself. I am questioning whether people who carry out such acts as this have any right at all to be considered for rehab. I know little about the system but believe there are many who can benefit from rehab just as society in general would from their rehabilitation. I also suspect that many do not get the right rehab as such services are underfunded, understaffed etc which is a detriment to all of us and is not a reflection of those who doing their best to provide such services. But as I say earlier, maybe society at large simply does not want to take the chance of ever being exposed again to people who have committed certain crimes - terrorism and some sex offending in particular. The line 'much to learn' is a phrase all too often trotted out, in the industry I work in as well, sadly I doubt if lessons will be learned as much as is desirable.

User avatar
Paul_Reflex
Posts: 604
Joined: Sat 31 Dec 2011, 10:31 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Paul_Reflex »

I can see both of the main points you make Berf, I just believe that everyone deserves help to build a better life no matter what they’ve done.

Berf
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu 24 Aug 2017, 7:12 pm

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Berf »

And that's where we differ Paul I believe the vast majority deserve the help you and your colleagues provide but there are a few that have crossed the line with the type of crime they have committed that do not and for public protection need to remain in prison. But good luck to you and those that you help.

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Brevet Cable »

T_J wrote:Well done those very brave people for taking on this terrorist

As opposed to the prats who just stood within yards of them either gawking or filming it on their mobile phones.
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

Finningley Boy
Posts: 3169
Joined: Sun 12 Oct 2008, 10:07 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Finningley Boy »

Brevet Cable wrote:
T_J wrote:Well done those very brave people for taking on this terrorist

As opposed to the prats who just stood within yards of them either gawking or filming it on their mobile phones.

None of us know how we will react in testing circumstances until the moment critique! As for those filming the incident, while they may appear reprehensible by their actions, they ultimately provided vital evidence.

FB :cuppa:
I have danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings!

User avatar
jingernut
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 5:24 pm
Location: Didcot
Contact:

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by jingernut »

Brevet Cable wrote:As opposed to the prats who just stood within yards of them either gawking or filming it on their mobile phones.


Possibly valuing your own life (by not getting directly involved) now makes someone a prat? :dizzy:

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4547
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by pbeardmore »

As usual, it seems to be the usual kneejerk reaction from all sides with little space for clarity, new ideas, open debate etc.

On one side, you literally have the "hang them high" group and on the other, you have the well meaning liberals who still think that everyone can "see the light". (the Learning Together project is part of this movement).

I think we have to seperate the concept of punishment from protecting the public. Prisons were and are built to hand out punishment. IF prisoners can convert themselves during that time, it's a bonus. But protecting the public is another concept. The key issue is what to do with these guys after their punishment is over. Lets not forget, we are dealing with offences such as conspiracy where no one was actually hurt. So if we lock people up for say fifteen years, the issue is waht to do at the end of that punishment. "The system" has no option that deals with the end of the punishment and the continued protection of the innocent public.

Personally, I have no issue with some form of detention centre where attendees (following their prison sentence) have a much better lifestyle BUT crucially, are seperated from the public.

One thing is sure. Treating this group as you would other criminals is just not the solution. They are unique both in their motivational framework and the risk they pose to the public : bearing that in mind, they require unique solutions. We have shown a distinct lack of imagination and determination on this issue so far and I can't see anything new coming from this latest attack.

I have further views re religion and core values but, such is the dominance of the "freedom of religion" lobby that we can't have an open discussion on forums like this.
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Brevet Cable »

jingernut wrote:
Brevet Cable wrote:As opposed to the prats who just stood within yards of them either gawking or filming it on their mobile phones.


Possibly valuing your own life (by not getting directly involved) now makes someone a prat? :dizzy:

Standing 2 or 3 yards away from a group of people rucking on the ground?....yep, prats.
Standing the same distance away if you can see the bloke they're grappling with happens to be waving a pair of knives around?....yep, even bigger prats who presumably don't value their own lives.
Still standing there when a pair of AROs are shouting at people to get away because they can see he's wearing what they believe to be an IED?....yep, complete and utter prats who definitely don't value their own lives.
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4547
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by pbeardmore »

Perfect example here of how we simply can't seem to focus on the key issue. Two people murdered, more injured in horrific circumstances. How do we prevent this in future? Forget that, lets have a debate about whether the bystanders are prats or not.
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

User avatar
jingernut
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 5:24 pm
Location: Didcot
Contact:

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by jingernut »

pbeardmore wrote:Perfect example here of how we simply can't seem to focus on the key issue. Two people murdered, more injured in horrific circumstances. How do we prevent this in future? Forget that, lets have a debate about whether the bystanders are prats or not.


Doesn't appear to be a debate... it's just one prat calling others prats.

Wryneck
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue 17 Sep 2019, 7:20 pm

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Wryneck »

Paul_Reflex wrote:I can see both of the main points you make Berf, I just believe that everyone deserves help to build a better life no matter what they’ve done.


Then you have some very strange beliefs - by stating everyone you are including HITLER in your statement :dizzy: Are you Corbyn in disguise??

How about concentrating on "what they have the potential to do" rather than "have done"...

User avatar
Paul_Reflex
Posts: 604
Joined: Sat 31 Dec 2011, 10:31 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Paul_Reflex »

Wryneck wrote:
Paul_Reflex wrote:I can see both of the main points you make Berf, I just believe that everyone deserves help to build a better life no matter what they’ve done.


Then you have some very strange beliefs - by stating everyone you are including HITLER in your statement :dizzy: Are you Corbyn in disguise??

How about concentrating on "what they have the potential to do" rather than "have done"...


Definitely not including Hitler as he is dead.

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Brevet Cable »

jingernut wrote:Doesn't appear to be a debate... it's just one prat calling others prats.

No real argument from you, then. :handbag:

pbeardmore wrote:Perfect example here of how we simply can't seem to focus on the key issue. Two people murdered, more injured in horrific circumstances. How do we prevent this in future?


OK....what do you do?

Shoot them straight off?
When they were originally arrested they hadn't actually done anything other than plan offences.
Do you do the same for people who've been arrested for watching AQ/ISIL-related videos or downloading certain literature, because they are classed ( and convicted ) as terrorists too.
Add in two other factors --
Firstly, in most cases that's exactly what they want...to die and be called a martyr, and any video footage or reporting of the event will - they hope - encourage others to follow them.
Secondly, it will inevitably lead to cries of "The bloody Kuffaar murdered poor......" which will lead to others seeking to 'avenge' them & therefore lead to the radicalisation of others.

Execute them?
Who do you execute? Those convicted of 'plotting' ( which covers a wide range of offences ) or only those convicted of actual terrorist acts?
As above, not only will they have got what they wanted, you also risk radicalising others.

Imprison them for life?
Again, who?
And locking someone away for the rest of their life ( which, given the age of many of them, could be 50 years or more ) is a very expensive process.
Or do you seek out another Country who'll agree to imprison them instead ( The Americans tried that with Gitmo )

Do you keep them in prison until they can prove they're deradicalised?
It's an old truism that going to prison makes you a better criminal & that one of the first things you learn is how to play the system.....and from all reports that's exactly what Usman Khan did.

Whatever you do is likely to have consequences.
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4547
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by pbeardmore »

see my previous post today concerning re-thinking the issue and seperating punishment from protecting the public.

It seems remarkable to me that well funded Cambridge University experts in Criminology can make such basic errors within their research. I can only think that "wish thinking" and "group think" played a key role in them accepting Khan's data at face value rather than stepping away (as a true scientist should) and checking to ensure that the data is reliable. I have read on one news source that Khan was used as a postive case study to illustrate how successful the project was.

It's a tragedy that a member of the project was killed but surely, serious questions have to be asked regarded the managerial oversight of this project and the seeming lack of risk management and scientific rigor. Wanting the results of research to be positive and actually proving it are two very different things
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

User avatar
rockfordstone
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed 14 Feb 2018, 8:40 pm
Contact:

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by rockfordstone »

Wryneck wrote:
Paul_Reflex wrote:I can see both of the main points you make Berf, I just believe that everyone deserves help to build a better life no matter what they’ve done.


Then you have some very strange beliefs - by stating everyone you are including HITLER in your statement :dizzy: Are you Corbyn in disguise??

How about concentrating on "what they have the potential to do" rather than "have done"...

of the massive load of bollocks that gets posted on this forum (and there is a lot), this has to be the biggest load of old bollocks I've read.

he clearly didn't mean Hitler, or Genghis Khan, or any other mass murder or dictator.

Finningley Boy
Posts: 3169
Joined: Sun 12 Oct 2008, 10:07 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Finningley Boy »

rockfordstone wrote:
Wryneck wrote:
Paul_Reflex wrote:I can see both of the main points you make Berf, I just believe that everyone deserves help to build a better life no matter what they’ve done.


Then you have some very strange beliefs - by stating everyone you are including HITLER in your statement :dizzy: Are you Corbyn in disguise??

How about concentrating on "what they have the potential to do" rather than "have done"...

of the massive load of bollocks that gets posted on this forum (and there is a lot), this has to be the biggest load of old bollocks I've read.

he clearly didn't mean Hitler, or Genghis Khan, or any other mass murder or dictator.

Rockfordstone,

I'm impressed beyond belief, does this mean I'm off the No 1 Spot on your UKAR complete T*ss*! list!? :king:

FB :biggrin:
I have danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings!

User avatar
rockfordstone
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed 14 Feb 2018, 8:40 pm
Contact:

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by rockfordstone »

Finningley Boy wrote:
rockfordstone wrote:
Wryneck wrote:
Paul_Reflex wrote:I can see both of the main points you make Berf, I just believe that everyone deserves help to build a better life no matter what they’ve done.


Then you have some very strange beliefs - by stating everyone you are including HITLER in your statement :dizzy: Are you Corbyn in disguise??

How about concentrating on "what they have the potential to do" rather than "have done"...

of the massive load of bollocks that gets posted on this forum (and there is a lot), this has to be the biggest load of old bollocks I've read.

he clearly didn't mean Hitler, or Genghis Khan, or any other mass murder or dictator.

Rockfordstone,

I'm impressed beyond belief, does this mean I'm off the No 1 Spot on your UKAR complete T*ss*! list!? :king:

FB :biggrin:


haha. you weren't no 1 on my list..... not yet anyways :P

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4547
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by pbeardmore »

I mentioned the naivity of the project and here is further evidence. Also, BJ has been hammered for politicising the event but this article is just as political.

"If we are to tackle terrorism and hateful extremism, we need secure, long-term funding for social care, youth work, probation, diversion schemes, mental health services and the arts."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... terrrorism
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

User avatar
Brevet Cable
Posts: 13190
Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Brevet Cable »

And from that.....

It was obvious to me that the programme had resulted in a positive, transformative experience for many prisoners and non-prisoners. Many of us were deeply moved by the stories we heard. But none of this work is without risk: it is often undertaken with limited resources and there will always be some for whom rehabilitation does not appear to work.


Except in Khan's case it did appear to have worked ( hence why he was something of a 'poster boy' and why he was given permission to travel to London )....... right up until the moment he carried out his pre-planned attack.

And the question which doesn't seem to have been asked yet is how exactly did he manage to get into the event whilst being in possession of a couple of knives & wearing a ( fake ) IED vest?
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다

Elliott Marsh
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri 19 Aug 2016, 11:02 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Elliott Marsh »

A reprehensible 'hot take' from the loathsome "General" Godfrey Bloom, hero of the right-leaning, here:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/goddersbloom/status/1201529186885754885[/tweet]

He has, quite rightly, been picked apart in the responses.

As ever, an incredibly complex issue is oddly being carved up into 'right' and 'left', as most things seemingly are these days, on social media. My strong disagreement with the baying calls to bring back the death penalty led to me being branded a Corbynite and terrorist sympathiser. That's where we are, that's the level of debate. What a sad indictment.

In other news, I read today that the Polish chef who instigated the narwhal tusk defence wasn't the man seen brandishing it on the bridge - he was, it seems, at the scene of the initial attack and, whilst fighting off the attacker with the tusk, was stabbed five times in the arm yet persisted.

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4547
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by pbeardmore »

Brevet, I think the answer is that everyone in the project was (and seemingly still is) so convinced of it's value and effectiveness that, to search ex offenders as they enter the event both undermines the image of a successful project and the trust (misplaced) in each individual. It's clear from that recent article that the enemy for them seems to be Islamaphobes, those looking to cut their budgets and right wing politicains etc when, common sense would tell you that the actually enemy are Islamic extremists. IMHO it's just another form of delusion that long term additional funding in "the arts" will be able to offer solutions. I'm not sure what better demonstration they want their methods are very very dangerous.

Check out the tweets that the author of the article sent on the day of the event - does that look underfunded ? Looks like Buck Palace. Also, see to the right that the event was being videoed?

https://twitter.com/mendoncapen?lang=en

"I am so excited to listen to and capture the remarkable achievements of all those #LearningTogether today"

This is key, they were absolutely convinced that "all" had "remarkable achievements". They were dealing in absolutes (with no evidence to back it up) rather than treating each offender on their own merits with proper scrutiny. :wall: :wall:
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

Elliott Marsh
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri 19 Aug 2016, 11:02 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by Elliott Marsh »

pbeardmore wrote:They were dealing in absolutes (with no evidence to back it up) rather than treating each offender on their own merits with proper scrutiny. :wall: :wall:


With respect, and the caveat that I've not read anything to support or disprove that claim, is that a fact or your presumption? Surely that statement requires knowledge not only of the project, but intimate knowledge of how the programme works in practice and how participants are assessed along the way?

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4547
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: London Bridge Incident

Post by pbeardmore »

The word "all" is an absolute. They all acheived remarkably (we know that's not true). By definition, they had no evidence (other than the guy lying to them) that all had acheived remarkably. Someone telling you that they have reformed surely cannot be regarded as empirical evidence?

Their website lists the four stages of data collection. (Ill try to find the link). This guy was held up as a case study of how the project was succeeding. And, as Brevet points out, they trusted him completely including letting him into the conference with at least two knives and the fake suicide vest.

I'm not sure what more needs to be shown to prove that their evidence collection procedure was flawed and the assumptions that they were making re the success of the project were based on that flawed evidence. How many "reformed" terrorists going mad with knives within the conference do you need to indicate that there is an issue with evidence collection, validation and interpretation? One is enough for me.

Found it. Considering they were knowingly dealing with the most extreme and dangerous of criminals (still on licence), it looks woefully inadequate.: (my bold)

Since its inception, Learning Together has been evaluated with the aim of understanding participants’ experiences in order to feed those experiences forward into our practices and enrich the theoretical foundations on which Learning Together is designed and delivered. Our approach to evaluation is highly inductive and our methods have been co-produced with our students who are participating in the research. We are gathering data in four key ways:

asking all of our students who wish to participate in the research to complete questionnaires before and after the course that ask them to reflect upon their personal attributes and sense of self-efficacy;
asking all of our students, mentors, facilitators and lecturers who wish to participate in the research to share a story each week during the course about their experiences of learning and to answer questions about their story;
asking all of our students, mentors, facilitators and lecturers who wish to participate in the research to partake in a reflective interview at the end of the course; and
asking all of our students, mentors, facilitators and lecturers who wish to participate in the research to come together as a group to make sense of their experiences as a whole in light of the stories that they have shared.


So they say four stages but, in terms of methodology and sourcing the data, they all contain the same obvious potential flaw. We ask, we ask, we ask, so the terrorist justs :
1. ticks the right box on the questionnaire
2. makes up a nice story
3. says the right things in a reflective interview
4. Comes together at the end to share experience.

The same obvious fault runs through their whole evidence gathering methodology. Mind boggling.
Last edited by pbeardmore on Tue 03 Dec 2019, 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”