Extra security

[chatty]

8 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Not if the outsourcing is not done in this country, but is done in one with a non existent to poor intelligence agency.

Theyd still have to source information from the UK if it was checked through an official database. Of course there are always ways to get round any system but the harder it is, the more work it takes, the less likely they are to take it. 

 

[chatty]

Btw Im not even arsed about having extra security on a personal level, just saying there are plenty of thibgs they can do to amp it up if need be. 

Im not put off by terrorism, best eay is to just crack on with life but if ithe threat is gonna disrupt events etc then im cool with organisers ramping things up. 

[TBD]

Just now, chatty said:

Im not sacrificing anything. Our laws are way to soft to the point they are pathetic. If anything id be gaining by having a harsher judicial system. 

One, no one preaching hate and condoning terrorism being jailed or deported is going to effect me negatively. 

Two, im not gonna suffer for it because I dont preach about killing people or want to associate with a terrorist organisation. 

So, I dont see what im sacrificing? 

Well fine in the context of radical islamic terrosim you won't be deemed a threat (especially if your white). But once you establish that just 'holding extremist beliefs' is a crime it doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine 'extremists beliefs' could be lets say opposistion to the gov etc etc. Inciting hatred or violence is already a crime anyway. As it is you have to have actually done something or be properly planning a crime to be prosecuted, you sound like you want people to be preemptively charged.

Oh and also a lot of the extremists in this country are british so I'm not sure where you'd imagine they should be deported to...

[chatty]

1 minute ago, TBD said:

Well fine in the context of radical islamic terrosim you won't be deemed a threat (especially if your white). But once you establish that just 'holding extremist beliefs' is a crime it doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine 'extremists beliefs' could be lets say opposistion to the gov etc etc. Inciting hatred or violence is already a crime anyway. As it is you have to have actually done something or be properly planning a crime to be prosecuted, you sound like you want people to be preemptively charged.

Oh and also a lot of the extremists in this country are british so I'm not sure where you'd imagine they should be deported to...

Depends on what it is. If people started a grouo where they were plotting the deaths of the governement then yeah I would say it was fair to imprison then. I dont care if what race/religion etc the group is, if there means are to incite violence then they are a danger to society and should be imprisoned. Beliefs of hatred shouldnt be accepted, fair enough if you have political points that you disagree on and want those points heard but if those points are based on achievement by force of violence then they hold no ground or are warranted so fuck anyone with them imo. Theres a clear difference between the two and its easy to prove. 

I didnt say Brits should be deported. I said jailed or deported so missing the part where I said jailed out is trying to bend my opinion to your own agenda. If your British you get imprisoned, if not then you get deported. Pretty simple really. 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 minute ago, chatty said:

Theyd still have to source information from the UK if it was checked through an official database. Of course there are always ways to get round any system but the harder it is, the more work it takes, the less likely they are to take it. 

 

I'm sure that these people could hack any UK data base they so wish. However, they probably don't have to even do that. I simply don't believe that the harder it is, the more work it takes, the less likely they are to take it approach. These are international terrorists FFS. 

The following bit of comedy film footage seems to sum up your argument to me;

 

 

[chatty]

Just now, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I'm sure that these people could hack any UK data base they so wish. However, they probably don't have to even do that. I simply don't believe that the harder it is, the more work it takes, the less likely they are to take it approach. These are international terrorists FFS. 

The following bit of comedy film footage seems to sum up your argument to me;

 

 

Of course it does. The higher ranking terrorists may spend years planning things but the lone wolf tyoe nutjobs sure as hell dont. Also if your hacking computers you leave a trace, sure its possible to get round as weve seen recently but it also leaves yourself open to counters. 

And of course its more difficult. Having to procure fake identification is more difficult than not having to. 

[fur_q]

32 minutes ago, chatty said:

 

One, no one preaching hate and condoning terrorism being jailed or deported is going to effect me negatively. 

Two, im not gonna suffer for it because I dont preach about killing people or want to associate with a terrorist organisation. 

So, I dont see what im sacrificing? 

C:\my_documents\political_memes\martin_niemöller_first_they_came.jpg

[Wooderson]

15 hours ago, Swine_Glasto2014 said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned before but in light of the Manchester attack and the cancellation of this gig in Germany.... Do we think Glastonbury could be under threat or will we see a big increase in security? 

Might well be a huge under cover operation going on! 

Why do people on this forum downvote posts like this? 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

14 minutes ago, chatty said:

Of course it does. The higher ranking terrorists may spend years planning things but the lone wolf tyoe nutjobs sure as hell dont. Also if your hacking computers you leave a trace, sure its possible to get round as weve seen recently but it also leaves yourself open to counters. 

And of course its more difficult. Having to procure fake identification is more difficult than not having to. 

I'm sure a lot of hackers probably can enter and exit a system without leaving a trace, but with having made the necessary inputs that they require. They wouldn't really be left open to 'counters' because they'd probably be sat in an internet cafe in some far off clime, while actually accessing your or my computer to do the dirty work within the system that they are hacking.

Having to procure fake ID, in the right circles, is probably as easy as you and me buying a Mars bar from a newsagents. Just a bit more expensive is all.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

5 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Why do people on this forum downvote posts like this? 

No idea this end. Seemed like a fair enough question to ask to me.

[chatty]

10 minutes ago, fur_q said:

C:\my_documents\political_memes\martin_niemöller_first_they_came.jpg

I know the poem, its good but it doesnt really mean shit in this context. If someone was being oppressed due to their race, sexual orientation, non violent social beliefs, gender etc then I would back them. 

However if they are murderous scum then I really do t give a shit about their rights. 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

7 minutes ago, chatty said:

 

However if they are murderous scum then I really do t give a shit about their rights. 

Nor me really. It's just that going down the lines that you propose would affect the rights of non murderous people too, and you have to ask yourself is such a course right and just. Is it really acceptable to adopt a system which you know is flawed and that innocent people will suffer as a result of that system. Not only that but that the ratio of innocent people affected to actually proven terrorists will possibly be huge.

[slash's hat]

1 hour ago, chatty said:

True and tbf I wouldnt want this as I would like to take drugs in but in terms of ideas for safety procedures theres liads nore that could be done. They could do tiered entrance times if they wanted. Would be a nightmare to organise but it could be done. Again, not something id want but if they were that concerned then its an option. 

Loving how you want to lock up people for thoughts or beliefs they have not acted upon, and be more authoritarian on drink drivers etc but its OK for you to break the law with taking drugs. I know you will argue you are not murdering anyone but just seems a bit hypocritical to me. Certainly if intelligence finds they are part of a terrorist plot then take action as soon as possible, but we can't go back down the road of locking people up for their beliefs if they've committed no crime.

[chatty]

7 minutes ago, slash's hat said:

Loving how you want to lock up people for thoughts or beliefs they have not acted upon, and be more authoritarian on drink drivers etc but its OK for you to break the law with taking drugs. I know you will argue you are not murdering anyone but just seems a bit hypocritical to me. Certainly if intelligence finds they are part of a terrorist plot then take action as soon as possible, but we can't go back down the road of locking people up for their beliefs if they've committed no crime.

If I get caught doing then I would accept the punishment so its not hypocritical. I know the law, I know its wrong legally so fair play to them if I get caught. 

I think drugs should be legalised for loads of different reasons which ill happily debate with but yeah I know the risks of that. 

Also, your right there is a huge difference between wanting to smoke some naturally grown plant and wanti g to kill someone because they dont think the same way as you. So, yeah, you do have to factor that it. 

But its apples and oranges again, two completely separate issue that has no bearing on the other so pointless argument really. 

And why not. Im talking aboutpeople who openly celebrate terrorist attacks, people who preach in the streets of hatred and murder, people who promote violence and wish death upon innocents due to those bullshit belief systems. 

I understand peoples worries about abuse of the system but I dont give two shits if someone if incarcerated for promoting racial hatred, outdated religious philosophies and the death of others. Fuck them. 

[slash's hat]

Isn't incarcerating people on the basis of  promoting racial hatred (again I'm talking of those who have committed no crime) - promoting racial hatred ourselves? Do you propose to lock up all people who have a problem with homosexuality just in case they attack someone? Where does it end?

[chatty]

7 minutes ago, slash's hat said:

Isn't incarcerating people on the basis of  promoting racial hatred (again I'm talking of those who have committed no crime) - promoting racial hatred ourselves? Do you propose to lock up all people who have a problem with homosexuality just in case they attack someone? Where does it end?

How is it promoting racial hatred? 

And sure if someone is out on the streets telling people to kill gay people, aggressively recruiting people to teach them the ways that gays are dangerous and should be killed then yes. 

Anyone promoting hatred on others with the intent of harming them should be incarcerated or at the least institutualized. 

Would that not worry you or do you think someone should die before you take action? 

I took 'problem with homosexuality' to the same extent Islam have with extremists just so we could have a fair comparison. 

Now if we go more moderate for example. People saying they disagree with homosexuality then whilst I think they are stupid as fuck they aint promoting violence among them. Intent of belief makes a huge difference imo.

Edited June 3, 2017 by chatty

[Losing my hair]

4 hours ago, Mardy said:

So no passport, no driving license = no entry to Glastonbury? We only want good upright citizens? Dear God, no. the whole ethos and history of the festival is built around those on the fringes of society. Why would you want you to block all that creativity, all that exuberance from coming? That's the very heart and soul of the festival. 

Perhaps only let people in who have the proper tie on and know the secret handshake.

[slash's hat]

1 minute ago, chatty said:

How is it promoting racial hatred? 

And sure if someone is out on the streets telling people to kill gay people, aggressively recruiting people to teach them the ways that gays are dangerous and should be killed then yes. 

Anyone promoting hatred on others with the i tent of harming them should be incarcerated or at the least institutualized. 

Would that not worry you or do you think someone should die before you take action? 

As I said before, if intelligence has evidence they are involved in a plot - then I agree fully with you, but not someone who just believes in their cause but is not active - however misguided their thoughts are, that is when you enter the territory of promoting racial hatred. If we take the example of racial prejudice of the police in some parts of the USA, you can't say that doesn't ignite racial hatred.

[Losing my hair]

4 hours ago, chatty said:

Nah, they can go to court but id they know they have extremist beliefs and can prove it then the penalty should be high. 

Currently you can and some do preach hatred in the streets. Condone killing and openly push these beliefs and are allowed to just craic on with it. 

Also a lot of them are in contact with terrorist groups which they know about through Twitter, Phone Records etc. Just hit them hard for it. 

Allowing them to just do this and wait for them to attempt a terrorist attack before you take action isnt a good idea imo. 

I know they say they just like to keep an eye on them for intel and maybes it does have its uses but I reckon a full on harsh crackdown on this shit would make a big difference. Irradicate the problem from the onset, yeah itll drive them underground more but so what, the more underground they are the harder it is for them to recruit and the harder it is for them to recruit the less the problem arises. 

Yes, get their mothers to give them a good slap & tell them to behave.

[fur_q]

1 minute ago, chatty said:

How is it promoting racial hatred? 

And sure if someone is out on the streets telling people to kill gay people, aggressively recruiting people to teach them the ways that gays are dangerous and should be killed then yes. 

Anyone promoting hatred on others with the i tent of harming them should be incarcerated or at the least institutualized. 

Would that not worry you or do you think someone should die before you take action? 

You do realise that these things are against the law as it stands don't you?

 

You seem to be suggesting locking people up for their views and that is what people are objecting too. I've no objection to locking up those who have crossed the line into either preparing to murder or inciting other to murder but the law already precludes this further more the law precludes membership of organisations the promote or glorify terrorism. 

How much further do you want to go with this. 

[Keithy]

2 hours ago, chatty said:

Of course it does. The higher ranking terrorists may spend years planning things but the lone wolf tyoe nutjobs sure as hell dont. Also if your hacking computers you leave a trace, sure its possible to get round as weve seen recently but it also leaves yourself open to counters. 

And of course its more difficult. Having to procure fake identification is more difficult than not having to. 

 

1 hour ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I'm sure a lot of hackers probably can enter and exit a system without leaving a trace, but with having made the necessary inputs that they require. They wouldn't really be left open to 'counters' because they'd probably be sat in an internet cafe in some far off clime, while actually accessing your or my computer to do the dirty work within the system that they are hacking.

Having to procure fake ID, in the right circles, is probably as easy as you and me buying a Mars bar from a newsagents. Just a bit more expensive is all.

Exactly right Yog. Everyone only knew about Wannacry because the hackers were polite enough to use a pop up message to tell you that you'd been hacked.

The tool was originally designed to remove files from a PC and transmit them withput detection to a another location. 

 

[Swine_Glasto2014]

2 hours ago, Wooderson said:

Why do people on this forum downvote posts like this? 

Was not meant to stir the responses it has tbh albeit very interesting to reads people views. 

Was having a chat with someone and I mentioned Glastonbury and they suggested it as a threat. Reckoned this was the best place to ask what people think. 

[chatty]

2 minutes ago, slash's hat said:

As I said before, if intelligence has evidence they are involved in a plot - then I agree fully with you, but not someone who just believes in their cause but is not active - however misguided their thoughts are, that is when you enter the territory of promoting racial hatred. If we take the example of racial prejudice of the police in some parts of the USA, you can't say that doesn't ignite racial hatred.

Again it completely different situations. The problem with the police in the USA isnt just a race issue, sure, some of ir is but its also a lot to do with the poverty stricken areas it generally happens in, gun control and the US criminal system. Its all a massive mess but nothing really alike the UKs problem with radicalists. 

As I said we can also institutionalize them as anyone getting into cults with terrorists and killers has some severe mental health issues. 

[chatty]

53 minutes ago, fur_q said:

You do realise that these things are against the law as it stands don't you?

 

You seem to be suggesting locking people up for their views and that is what people are objecting too. I've no objection to locking up those who have crossed the line into either preparing to murder or inciting other to murder but the law already precludes this further more the law precludes membership of organisations the promote or glorify terrorism. 

How much further do you want to go with this. 

Well maybes they need to be doing a better job of witholding it cause theyre doing a pretty shit job as it stands in that case. 

[frostypaw]

1. they already do run the ticket holders database through the police checks, they haul folk away as they arrive via numberplate recognition if possible but they've also swept down on people at the gates

2. if you imagine heavy handed security will stop stuff getting into a festival you should go to boomtown, if anything it makes the situation far more dodgy and dangerous