Ps To Question About Failure Of Copy...
Technology3 mins ago
Should The Children Of Islamic Radicals Be Taken Into Care?
64 Answers
http://
One may not particularly like Boris or his politics, but can anyone disagree with him over this?
One may not particularly like Boris or his politics, but can anyone disagree with him over this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG
"So therefore you also do not believe that the authorities should not remove children from known drug addicts in case they also became addicted?"
That's not quite the same.
Children if known drug addicts are not removed specifically because of the danger of them becoming drug addicts, but because hardcore addicts often find it difficult to raise children in a safe environment.
"So therefore you also do not believe that the authorities should not remove children from known drug addicts in case they also became addicted?"
That's not quite the same.
Children if known drug addicts are not removed specifically because of the danger of them becoming drug addicts, but because hardcore addicts often find it difficult to raise children in a safe environment.
It seems to me, and some others here, that Mr Johnson simply hasn't thought this through.
In practical terms, we would have to define what Islamic radicalism actually means. If it is the support and commission of terrorist acts, that's one thing - but that's a crime...and there is already processes in place to deal with the children of convicted criminals.
But then there's the question of the terrorist father with a wife who knows nothing of his actions until he's arrested. Should her children be put into care? Or would it make more sense for an exclusion order to be placed on the father?
And why just the children? What would the stance be if someone's cousin is convicted of a terrorist act? Mums and dads can be influential, but so can brothers, and uncles, and aunts, and sisters...
So...do we swoop in an remove all minors in the immediate and extended family into care?
Perhaps this needs more thought from our Mayor.
Boris has taken a couple of stands/initiative for which I applaud him (the banning of the gay-cure adverts and the introduction of the bike scheme in London), but I think he is off base on this.
In practical terms, we would have to define what Islamic radicalism actually means. If it is the support and commission of terrorist acts, that's one thing - but that's a crime...and there is already processes in place to deal with the children of convicted criminals.
But then there's the question of the terrorist father with a wife who knows nothing of his actions until he's arrested. Should her children be put into care? Or would it make more sense for an exclusion order to be placed on the father?
And why just the children? What would the stance be if someone's cousin is convicted of a terrorist act? Mums and dads can be influential, but so can brothers, and uncles, and aunts, and sisters...
So...do we swoop in an remove all minors in the immediate and extended family into care?
Perhaps this needs more thought from our Mayor.
Boris has taken a couple of stands/initiative for which I applaud him (the banning of the gay-cure adverts and the introduction of the bike scheme in London), but I think he is off base on this.
sp1814
/// Should we limit it to the children of convicted terrorists? Or spread the net wider to those who have been convicted of encouraging terrorism? Or wider still, and include those who follow strict religious doctrines which we strongly disagree with? ///
It is not for me to comment on who these measures should apply to. for a start apart from certain individuals I could not point to those who might need this action taken against them, but I am sure that the Terrorist Squad know who are at risk.
/// And should we only target Muslims? ///
Well since some Muslims are the potential terrorists at the moment, my answer would be yes, we could always open it up for others if they came to fruition.
/// Should we limit it to the children of convicted terrorists? Or spread the net wider to those who have been convicted of encouraging terrorism? Or wider still, and include those who follow strict religious doctrines which we strongly disagree with? ///
It is not for me to comment on who these measures should apply to. for a start apart from certain individuals I could not point to those who might need this action taken against them, but I am sure that the Terrorist Squad know who are at risk.
/// And should we only target Muslims? ///
Well since some Muslims are the potential terrorists at the moment, my answer would be yes, we could always open it up for others if they came to fruition.
sp1814
/// Boris has taken a couple of stands/initiative for which I applaud him (the banning of the gay-cure adverts and the introduction of the bike scheme in London), but I think he is off base on this. ///
That is your prerogative, but it does not make him necessarily wrong in this case.
Take your agreement with his bike scheme, there would be many who would disagree with you on that particular issue.
http://
/// Boris has taken a couple of stands/initiative for which I applaud him (the banning of the gay-cure adverts and the introduction of the bike scheme in London), but I think he is off base on this. ///
That is your prerogative, but it does not make him necessarily wrong in this case.
Take your agreement with his bike scheme, there would be many who would disagree with you on that particular issue.
http://
Zeuhl raises a point I'd not thought of...
Let's say the police and intelligence services are monitoring those who are suspected of supporting the commission of terrorist acts...
What do they do with the children? At what point do they get taken into care? Prior to a crime being committed?
What this suggests is a version of Minority Report.
But even worse, it's a version of Minority Report by proxy...where the children of someone who hasn't committed a crime are taken into care in case THEY get radicalised into committing a crime at some indefinite point in the future.
It's all a bit too Philip K Dick for me.
Let's say the police and intelligence services are monitoring those who are suspected of supporting the commission of terrorist acts...
What do they do with the children? At what point do they get taken into care? Prior to a crime being committed?
What this suggests is a version of Minority Report.
But even worse, it's a version of Minority Report by proxy...where the children of someone who hasn't committed a crime are taken into care in case THEY get radicalised into committing a crime at some indefinite point in the future.
It's all a bit too Philip K Dick for me.
AOG - you could just as well 'point out' a paedophile, or a wife-beater, or a rapist - except you can't.
These actions are committed behind closed doors - fundamentalists don't walk around with a big 'F' branded on their foreheads.
If it were possible to 'simply identify' fundamentalists, we'd all be doing it, they would have no hiding place because everyone would know who and where they are.
The fact that is not that simple - except in Mt Johnson's mind - rather underlines my point.
These actions are committed behind closed doors - fundamentalists don't walk around with a big 'F' branded on their foreheads.
If it were possible to 'simply identify' fundamentalists, we'd all be doing it, they would have no hiding place because everyone would know who and where they are.
The fact that is not that simple - except in Mt Johnson's mind - rather underlines my point.
Whether people agree or disagree with me on the Boris bikes is not relevant. I said that I liked a couple of his initiative. The opinion of others is moot.
Regarding this idea - I disagree with his proposal and I think it's unworkable.
I've not seen much in way of counter-arguments on this thread to persuade me that it could worked either legally or practically. If someone would like to proffer some ideas which counter arguments put forward by andy_huges and Zeuhl, I will be glad to hear them.
Regarding this idea - I disagree with his proposal and I think it's unworkable.
I've not seen much in way of counter-arguments on this thread to persuade me that it could worked either legally or practically. If someone would like to proffer some ideas which counter arguments put forward by andy_huges and Zeuhl, I will be glad to hear them.
andy-hughes
/// These actions are committed behind closed doors - fundamentalists don't walk around with a big 'F' branded on their foreheads. ///
There is no need for them to walk around with a big 'F' branded on their foreheads, they are openly fundamentalist.
http://
http://
http://
/// These actions are committed behind closed doors - fundamentalists don't walk around with a big 'F' branded on their foreheads. ///
There is no need for them to walk around with a big 'F' branded on their foreheads, they are openly fundamentalist.
http://
http://
http://
AOG
If you cannot tell us what you consider an Islamic radical is, then it's difficult to discuss whether the Mayor's suggestion is workable.
As an example - if someone posted the question:
"To prevent the spread of TB in the countryside, should we support the culling of animals?"
In order to answer that question, we would need to know which animals need to be culled, and the likelihood of inter-species transference".
I totally get the idea of the children of convicted terrorists being taken into care, to remove them from a toxic home environment (but then again - there's the question of potentially innocent mothers having their children taken away), but it becomes difficult to support the notion if we spread the net wider to include all those with extremist views we might find wholly unacceptable.
And if we follow that argument to its logical conclusion - why don't we take the children of those who commit ALL hate crimes? Why should it only be those who bring up their children to hate the West? Why not those who bring up their children to hate anyone?
Are they not as toxic?
If you cannot tell us what you consider an Islamic radical is, then it's difficult to discuss whether the Mayor's suggestion is workable.
As an example - if someone posted the question:
"To prevent the spread of TB in the countryside, should we support the culling of animals?"
In order to answer that question, we would need to know which animals need to be culled, and the likelihood of inter-species transference".
I totally get the idea of the children of convicted terrorists being taken into care, to remove them from a toxic home environment (but then again - there's the question of potentially innocent mothers having their children taken away), but it becomes difficult to support the notion if we spread the net wider to include all those with extremist views we might find wholly unacceptable.
And if we follow that argument to its logical conclusion - why don't we take the children of those who commit ALL hate crimes? Why should it only be those who bring up their children to hate the West? Why not those who bring up their children to hate anyone?
Are they not as toxic?
AOG "andy-hughes
/// These actions are committed behind closed doors - fundamentalists don't walk around with a big 'F' branded on their foreheads. ///
There is no need for them to walk around with a big 'F' branded on their foreheads, they are openly fundamentalist."
Simple then - all we have to do is follow each and every person carrying a placard home, and remove their children from them.
Job done.
Can't see any problems there - can you?
/// These actions are committed behind closed doors - fundamentalists don't walk around with a big 'F' branded on their foreheads. ///
There is no need for them to walk around with a big 'F' branded on their foreheads, they are openly fundamentalist."
Simple then - all we have to do is follow each and every person carrying a placard home, and remove their children from them.
Job done.
Can't see any problems there - can you?
/I have done it on a number of occasions but they only pick out the points they prefer too. while ignoring certain counter points that I have made./
Yeah, tricky business this debating lark isn't it aog?
Especially when others pick out the points they want to instead of the ones you want them to
...very amusing aog
Boris's idea (and your defence of it) seems to fall down when challenged for definitions and how it would work.
"we know you haven't been convicted or even charged with any crimes, but we don't like the look of you and you're on our list - so we'll be taking your kids away from you"
Yeah, like that's going to work.
Perhaps aog should just adapt some of the old Stasi procedures and save Boris the trouble
Yeah, tricky business this debating lark isn't it aog?
Especially when others pick out the points they want to instead of the ones you want them to
...very amusing aog
Boris's idea (and your defence of it) seems to fall down when challenged for definitions and how it would work.
"we know you haven't been convicted or even charged with any crimes, but we don't like the look of you and you're on our list - so we'll be taking your kids away from you"
Yeah, like that's going to work.
Perhaps aog should just adapt some of the old Stasi procedures and save Boris the trouble
strange they don't take children away from parents they clearly should, yet leave them be, like those of Baby P, with enough evidence to support removal to a safe environment, i can't see how any one can make a distinction on the grounds of one's fundamental beliefs however. If they are being physically, sexually abused i would understand that, but the parents religious views aren't always extreme.
emmie
I firmly believe that there are children in care today and children who have been adopted who otherwise would be dead. I see the Baby P case as an anomaly which will happen again and again, because the care system is run by humans, and humans are simply fallible.
But I get your point...unless there is clear proof that a child is in danger, social services are loathe to remove a child from its family.
Baby P and Victoria Climbie are extreme cases, where the parents not only abused their children, but also the system that is there to protect them.
Sad to say, without a social worker assigned to live in every house where there is a child, this will happen again.
Same with dangerous dogs. The aim is to reduce the number of children attacked/killed by these animals to zero...but in order to do that, every single adult with a dog in the UK would have to be educated, responsible and sensible.
That will never happen.
I firmly believe that there are children in care today and children who have been adopted who otherwise would be dead. I see the Baby P case as an anomaly which will happen again and again, because the care system is run by humans, and humans are simply fallible.
But I get your point...unless there is clear proof that a child is in danger, social services are loathe to remove a child from its family.
Baby P and Victoria Climbie are extreme cases, where the parents not only abused their children, but also the system that is there to protect them.
Sad to say, without a social worker assigned to live in every house where there is a child, this will happen again.
Same with dangerous dogs. The aim is to reduce the number of children attacked/killed by these animals to zero...but in order to do that, every single adult with a dog in the UK would have to be educated, responsible and sensible.
That will never happen.
Latest Posts
Jobs & Education4 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News21 mins ago
Technology27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.