Not at all. You get to choose between spending the rest of your life in a concentration camp or being hung from a red, white and blue gallows whilst 'God Save The Queen' blasts out of a Chinese-made PA system.

We could televise the ceremonies at half time during footbal matches, those refusing could be buried up to their necks on the half way line and gradually trampled to death over the course of the second half.

Cool my wife is the same does she go next to me on the gallows and does my 2 and my 3 year old's join us by association?

I've just listened to a discussion on Sky News which included two Muslims: one a former extremist who fought against the Russians in Afghanistan and the other a former British soldier. Neither justified the Islamist terrorism on the basis of British government foreign policy. In fact, neither justified Islamist terrorism at all. The former extremist pointed to mosques in this country, along with some universities, where radicalisation is taking place as well as the Internet and such sites as Inquire, a radical e-mag created in the middle east aimed at getting individuals out and about making bombs in their homes and buying kitchen knives to kill westerners with. He was very frank about the existence of this radicalisation both on a local level and globally. The former soldier was at pains to reassure people that the vast majority of the 3 million Muslims living in this country were nothing like the terrorists at all and were as horrified by this attack as non-Muslims.

Radicalisation in some way or another has always occurred regardless of time or location or cause, more often in young men than in young women, and I don't think there are specific reasons for it occurring but I'm no expert on the matter. I'm just an outsider reflecting on the situation. All that is important in my view is that the government and other interested parties, including us mere mortals, continue to work with the Muslim community wherever it is represented in challenging radicalism and undermining terrorism.

Probably. Either that or they'll be sold into slavery.

It is a terrorist attack. The only reason there is any doubts about this in media reporting and from politicians is because historically there's been a general unwillingness by many states to agree upon what terrorism is, effectively because said countries - including us - have committed actions which fit the accepted definition.



This was a terrorist act, there can be no doubt about it.

Well that's a shame but at least Dally will have his version of the UK.

If that's what you meant – fine. Perhaps you should learn to write what you mean. And it should be 'haven't there'. If you're going to try to patronise, it helps to at least look basically literate.

Anyway, I await your evidence for this apparent rise in such attacks.

For clarity, in case you're struggling, I have not doubt there have been attacks and would not suggest otherwise. But some sort of massive surge? And from just one set of reactionary thugs?

Doubtless you won't read of such attacks as rlthisrl in your Antipodean stronghold.

I wonder whether we should describe it as a 'terrorist' attack?

Unless the perpetrators can be linked to known terrorist groups I'd tend to agree it is not a terrorist attack. This was the point I was making in my earlier posts.

However that isn't the UK's legal stance on the matter.

There isn't a universally accepted definition of terrorism anyway but in the UK murdering someone for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause is classed as terrorism by the law.

It seems too broad a catch-all to me and it could be argued the British Government is often in breach of its own law.

Even so you will still have to prove their motives where in accord with the UK laws definition and that they weren't simply mentally ill.

As usual there is a danger if it is accepted as a terrorist attack it will be used as an excuse to introduce laws that will curtail our freedoms. There is [ialready[/i at least one politician using this incident to bemoan the fact the "snoopers charter" bill was dropped. Lord Reid. He who was in favour of locking people up for 90 days without trial and he is doing this off the back of an incident the investigation of which hasn't reached any conclusions!

rlHow about this, then?rl

There is still no internationally accepted definition.

We in the UK have a definition as set out in the terrorism act of 2000 and if you read it we have as you say committed actions that appear to contravene our own law.



Depends on the definition and if the motives match it.

The UK terrorism act says this:

The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system

So the motive has to be one of b) or c) in section 1 and you then have to do one of actions in section 2.

Revenge isn't in there as a motive and that is the reason given by one of the perpetrators to the woman who engaged him in conversation.

Next stop is enforced stop and search, proceeded by mandortory ID cards. Thanks to tony Blair , their is very little the anti terrorism law does not cover.

This was not a terrorist attack.

It's heinous but I'm not sure if it's terrorism. Seems to be a senseless attack by somebody who is mentally ill more than anything but then that's my first time reading the story.

But will it cause terror to disabled people in that area?

If so, is it not by definition, a terrorist attack?

Incidentally, we're guessing at the mental state of the attacker. But let's fly with it for a moment. If one has been indoctrinated/brainwashed into a jihadist mentality, what is that if not a state of mental affliction?