Apologies, I was reading your conspiracy theory that Islamic terrorism was actually a Jewish conspiracy as something you thought Prevent might puck up.
No problem.
Which Islamic terrorist attacks do you think were planned by Mossad?
Interesting you think that - do you have any evidence to support your idea that Mossad planned terrorist attacks by Muslims? I have not looked into it myself but no doubt various journalists have and if you have read any investigations on Mossad involvement in arms or technology sales to Muslim groups that have links with terrorism, please post what you came up with.
I am aware that someone working as part of the Israeli diplomatic team in the UK recently resigned and returned to Israel after being recorded as saying he wanted to "take down" pro-Palestinian British MPs and unduly interfere in the UK democratic process, and that certain political figures have called for a full inquiry into the influence of pro-Israel lobby groups on UK politics.
The points I made are that I challenge people who claim 9/11 was a Jewish/CIA conspiracy, and I brought this up because this 9/11 claim is viewed as a sign of extremism by some people, and that while I can understand that people may view certain Zionist/ Mossad or even CIA activity with suspicion based on past form for conspiracies, there is no evidence to support the 9/11 conspiracy theories about Jewish people staying home from work or Mossad or the CIA being involved.
Again however, you seem to mistake me for someone arguing that Prevent is a good strategy.
No I had not formed that opinion about your view - I thought we were merely discussing Prevent and I was picking up on points you had made and expanding on points that I had made. No strategy is perfect so I favour trying to make an assessment on whether the strategy is working more often than it is not working.
We are disagreeing on whether transparency is the main issue.
I don't know if it is the main issue. I see it as one issue that might stop Prevent from achieving its objectives - I stated lack of transparency was one criticism.
I see it as effectively being the duty to relief which increases the likelihood of the false positives, and that you ignore the feasibility of training in this scale seems odd.
I am trying to assess whether the number of false positives is exaggerated and is damaging the objectives and whether more training or a process to share concerns with more culturally aware people before referral to the police to reduce false positives is the way to go.
As to the collection of metrics, I think we have to be careful here both of those you suggest are soft figures, subject to interpretation. There is myth that everything is metrics in a scientific sense. Alienatiinis asubjective statement. As indeed is any judgement of radicalization.
Yes and a criticism seems to be that if Prevent is seeking tocombat alienation that leads to radicalisation then people in authority need to be more careful about how they reach subjective judgements that someone is displaying signs of radicalisation or extremism as opposed to just being culturally different and conservative.
To be honest, I think Prevent is a great example of we must do something, this is something, we must do this thinking. It reads lime a strategy rather than allowing a more flexible approach. Also I doubt there is a way to avoid some forms of clash between govt trying to DL something here and communities. Some of it has to be trial and error.
Yes I agree on a trial and error approach - this approach usually involves review and feedback. It seems difficult to judge the impartiality of the review and feedback process and if the process is working.
