Betfair Community

Home › Chit Chat Forum › How many people are in prison for terror offences?

Switch to Community Classic App Directory

Chit Chat

‹ back to topics

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

How many people are in prison for terror offences?

casemoney

11 Jan 20 18:55

Joined:

Date Joined: 04 Aug 06

| Topic/replies: 62,785 | Blogger: casemoney's blog

How many people are in prison for terror offences?
The majority are Islamist extremists, although their numbers fell to 173 last year - down from 187 in 2017.

There has been a rise in the number of far-right extremists jailed, with an increase from six to 38 over the past five years.

FOOOOOOOOOK ORF

Switch to Live View refresh Post Reply

Post your reply

Page 1 of 2 • Previous 1 | 2 | Next

sort by:

Show per page

Replies: 66

By:

casemoney When: 11 Jan 20 18:56

What about Islamist Sex cases how many of them are in ??

By:

Reynard When: 11 Jan 20 20:49

Definition of "Terror Offence" required

By:

moisok When: 12 Jan 20 00:39

drawing pictures and posting them on the internet will get you nearly 7 years even if you are a deluded 17 year old

By:

moisok When: 12 Jan 20 00:41

some of the nazi far right thugs are in nick for being members of proscribed groups etc

By:

Reynard When: 12 Jan 20 05:40

Is the ICF a 'proscribed group' ? Or Millwall's F-troop ?

By:

Angoose When: 12 Jan 20 10:02

terror

NOUN
extreme fear.
"people fled in terror"

synonyms:
extreme fear · dread · horror · fear and trembling · fright · trepidation · alarm · panic · shock · funk

the use of extreme fear to intimidate people.
"weapons of terror"

terrorism.
"a terror suspect"

By:

MALAY When: 12 Jan 20 10:29

Blair should be in the jail, the brits from bloody sunday should be in the jail but they aren't so counting who's in or not is pointless.

By:

lfc1971 When: 12 Jan 20 10:44

They aren’t terrorists , terrorists are enemies of the state and enemies of the British people

By:

Reynard When: 12 Jan 20 14:44

Yeah , that's what I thought

By:

lfc1971 When: 12 Jan 20 15:45

Reynard’s confused again

By:

macarony When: 12 Jan 20 16:12

How many people are in prison for terror offences?

And how many can be deported now we are out of the EU

By:

Reynard When: 12 Jan 20 16:55

I'm confused as to what constitutes a 'terror offence' according to British security services .
If that amuses you then so be it .

By:

lfc1971 When: 12 Jan 20 17:22

It has to invoke an act of terrorism , that’s all

By:

lfc1971 When: 12 Jan 20 17:23

If that confused you ? So be it

By:

lfc1971 When: 12 Jan 20 17:30

sorry Reynard didn’t see your first post , I’m confused !

By:

Injera When: 12 Jan 20 17:34

terror definition: 1. extreme fear: 2. violent action or threats designed to cause fear among ordinary people,

Does this qualify or maybe it doesn't count.....

Seven men face 12 charges of rape and indecent assault on two girls in the Huddersfield area from 1995 to 2007.

Leeds Crown Court heard one victim, who was then 14 or 15 years old, was given alcohol and drugs by her abusers prior to the attacks.

All seven men deny the charges. The case is set to last five weeks.

The court heard she had previously estimated being forced to have sex with "up to 300 men".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-51052137

9th Jan report. But of course, quickly hidden.....

By:

UBLE/REGY When: 12 Jan 20 17:47

I think terror...mat be taken as short for terrorist

So it is an offence usually committed for some political cause or belief

By:

Injera When: 12 Jan 20 17:52

Belief in paedophillia?

By:

macarony When: 12 Jan 20 17:52

how many people have been arrested or jailed for saying/posted something like I hate all whoever lets kill the b@stards, but in reality have no real intention or capability of carrying out the threat.

By:

UBLE/REGY When: 12 Jan 20 17:55

Paedophilia is a disgusting sex offence Injera

but has no political cause

By:

impossible123 When: 12 Jan 20 18:34

I think terror is against the state and its citizens.

By:

detraveller When: 12 Jan 20 19:01

Do yourselves a favor and read the legal defition of a terror offence . It will explain why the number is so low. Dictionary definition not relevant

By:

Injera When: 12 Jan 20 20:37

Post it dt.

By:

moisok When: 12 Jan 20 20:45

some youngsters go to jail for 7 years for drawing cartoons and posting them on the net etc

at least that is one less nazi to worry about

By:

moisok When: 12 Jan 20 20:46

there has been a'massive' increase in Nazi activity

several belonging to proscribed organisations

I think the biggest increase has been in the south west

By:

detraveller When: 12 Jan 20 21:42

Jan 12, 2020 -- 8:37PM, Injera wrote:

Post it dt.

I just googled it. It has three parts: 1. the action involves violence, threats, danger to public/society etc. 2. action is meant to influence the govt or public 3. purpose/motive is religious/political/racial/ideological

Most of the crimes would fall under 1 and 2 but I think its the third part that makes it so hard for a crime to be deemed an act of terror. For instance your grooming gangs can easily be deemed a danger to public safety and designed to influence the public but don't think you can prove that they are meant to promote a particular religion/race/ideology.

Another thing that hit me when I read that definition was how often we hear about the mental illness of a suspect. It all makes sense. When you are mentally ill, you do not have the mental capacity to undertake an action that promotes an ideology or hatred. A mentally ill person is unable to determine these things for himself(the court's words, not mine). So, if you are mentally ill, you cannot commit a terror offense.

By:

lfc1971 When: 12 Jan 20 22:02

Not rocket science

By:

Injera When: 12 Jan 20 22:07

Sums up the abuse of thousands in Telford, Rotherham and all stations east,north south and west.

Govt policy influenced (don't talk about it. Muslims are good/can do no wrong). Plod complicit/afraid to criticise Islam. Tick.

Religiously motivated.(See the Hadiths) Tick.
Violence/threats/danger to public. Tick.

Racially motivated. See the Jay report. Tick.
Idelogical. 'Spoils of war' - al Anfal.. Tick.

Dar al Harb - house of war. If Muslims reside in a non Islamic culture they are by definition at war.

By:

detraveller When: 12 Jan 20 22:13

No,I doubt the grooming gangs are religiously motivated(in a legal sense). Surely you cannot prove that in a court? Even if the koran says all non muslim girls should be raped, it does not mean a muslim carrying out a rape was motivated by the book.

By:

Reynard When: 12 Jan 20 22:45

They're ALL motivated by that bloody book ffs ! By definition , it's their blueprint for life !

By:

Reynard When: 12 Jan 20 22:47

There are countless examples of them quoting scripture whilst committing their heinous crimes . How much more proof do you require ?

By:

detraveller When: 12 Jan 20 23:14

I don't need any proof. The court needs it. I am no legal expert but I don't think you can prove that by grooming young girls, the gangs are advancing a religious cause. How would you argue?

By:

Reynard When: 12 Jan 20 23:20

If they're actually telling the girls that they are the "property of Mohammed" then I reckon that constitutes sufficient proof .
It's the use of such religious rhetoric that is one of the main reasons that media reporting on these cases is restricted . The state clearly wish to keep the religious motives for these offences from the general public .

By:

casemoney When: 12 Jan 20 23:32

Roaring and Shouting about the Book , is acceptable in the new UK ...

By:

impossible123 When: 13 Jan 20 00:16

It's without doubt the activities of the South Asian grooming gangs was racially motivated as their chosen victims were entirely white - not Chinese/Japanese/Eastern Europeans/Aussies/etc) - but vulnerable white local girls.

By:

detraveller When: 13 Jan 20 00:57

The way you put it, it does seem racially motivated. The only counter arguments I can think of are:

1. Its a country full of white people. It was just a coincidence that the victims were all white(80% of population). I would say this is a weak argument though.

2. Even if we do assume that these actions help 'advance the cause of Islam', they have to benefit a proscribed organization. I don't see how raping young white girls benefits any proscribed organization. Therefore, it can't be terrorism?

By:

Reynard When: 13 Jan 20 01:10

@detraveller :-
Regarding your 1st point . 1. Its a country full of white people . Really ? Not quite as 'full' as it once was !
Regarding your 2nd point . Murdering innocent people on London Bridge doesn't exactly 'benefit' Islam , but is without doubt an act of terrorism .

By:

detraveller When: 13 Jan 20 10:37

actually im confused now too. Looks like you could easily call the grooming gangs terrorists.

By:

impossible123 When: 13 Jan 20 16:09

Where the gangs operated their community accounted for a large proportion of the inhabitants. But, the victims were nearly 100% vulnerable young white girls, not Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Pakistanis, Iraqis, etc, but specifically white. These girls were targeted by the cowardice sicko Pakistanis cab drivers.