International violence and UK security.

Not sure I understand your terms of reference. If it's so simple, why is it so complicated?

That's just the point. It's NOT simple. There are no easy answers. In fact there are NO answers that are within the bounds of reality. The 'problem' has to run its course. The disenfranchised will always be with us and prone to violence. Every now and then the 'problem' is reduced to acceptable levels especially when other emergencies become more important - i.e. wars of one kind or another. Small wars are often confused with 'terrorism'. The 'War on terror' is simply a euphemism for 'small disparate wars'. Lovely world is it not?

Lovely in the quiet places away from the madding crowd, if you can find them. Many once disparate 'small wars' are congealing into something of more than local concern. That's the perception, with people becoming generally more security concious about travelling abroad.

Good. About time we looked after our own tourist industry for a change. I know the arguments. Doesn't help our economy regardless.

What's widely reported going on in Calais, with lots more migrants arriving from many countries and some of them being more violent, may be true maybe not.

It's a dilemma, with charity appeals collecting necessities of life to be sent to Calais, a sharing and caring attitude, and at the same time, security forces and organisations trying to disperse the camps.

What's the right attitude is the question. It's good to help refugees from war, but perhaps not a good idea to focus that help on Calais.

On expanding our tourism, if it can be done to high quality, to create a better environment generally, very good.

Genie out of bottle with Calais and the rest of the Continent. Blame the Germans for their big-mouthed idiocy and conscience -seeking lunacy. The French wanted the EU. They've got it. And they can keep the proceeds. Any lone children with relatives here should be given some consideration - otherwise - let the French sort it out.

We've become so used to people like Mr. Chowdrey doing and saying what they like with complete impunity, it's something of a surprise that he's been taken to court and convicted of terrorism.

There is now some debate as to whether the BBC could or should be charged with aiding and abetting. It would probably become a long drawn out an expensive business to do so. Perhaps a simple apology from the BBC might be more useful and appropriate?

The BBC are supposed to provide unbiased reporting. If they do not report Amjam Choudray they are not doing so. they reported Gerry Adams and Mick McGuiness (voiced by actors) who were at least as offensive. I would sooner have open reporting than a party line - no apologies necessary.

There is something in what you say Johnb, open and balanced reporting is an important principle, which is why legal action would be problematic.

However, Mr. Chowdery has always been open about his views, which are completely unacceptable. It shows very poor judgement by the BBC to interview him respectfully and allow him airtime to celebrate and approve terrorist actions such as the murder of Lee Rigby.

The BBC should feel free to apologise for that.

Democracy means the same opportunities for all. If you don't like it. Switch it off. A 'cause' is a 'cause' no matter whose 'cause' that is. If you are swayed by the argument to do unacceptable things (as in against societies rules and law) that says more about you than anything else. There are many things in life we don't like. That's life as we know it. Suck it up. No apologises are required by anyone for reporting the news providing it is a true reflection. There are those that would say the BBC has lost its way as regards that. I'm inclined to agree that too much 'control' is allowed from above these days and was not impressed by the 'referendum' reporting and I'm even less impressed by the 'death and destruction' emphasis given to the most inane of subjects. Then again - perhaps that's just me.

The BBC sometimes have to change plans according to circumstances. Their idea for a Jimmy Saville and Anjem Choudary Xmas Special had to be cancelled.

As you say Atlas, "No apologises are required by anyone for reporting the news providing it is a true reflection."

Media handling and use of Choudary was bad, he became a favourite clown in a media circus. The media mis-presented him as representitive of British Muslim opinion, not a "true reflection". The BBC failed to intelligently 'see into' the situation, failed to research the facts. Whether they want to apologise or not depends on what is expected of the BBC, 'Cor what a scorcher', or, intelligent news analysis.

One has the right to expect an totally unbiased, intelligent reporting from the BBC. It's a public broadcaster paid for by the public's contributions and should never, except in times of public emergency, be refused to present it's contributions as such. Only a declaration of war or the announcing of Marshall law has the government of the day the right to take over the BBC's independent control. However - as per my last post - it does seem as it has got itself under the sort of management that appears to be taking some directions from the government of the day as to the 'slanting' of some of the politics. Not a good step. Omissions and disingenuous reporting only fools some of the people some of the time. It is time they, Aunty Beeb, get their act together and dumped those who would propagandise instead of truthfully inform and educate.

As with the Saville case, it's arguable who knew what and when within the BBC. Both Saville and Choudray were promoted by the BBC, and later convicted of serious crimes. In both cases, the publicity and status that comes with appearing regularly on BBC television facilitated those criminal activities.

If you don't tell me about it I don't have to do anything about it. So as far as it goes - you haven't told me and therefore I don't know - the policy being - dirty linen does not help roses grow - ergo - don't give me any. It has always been thus and even with today's enlightened society still exists in many influential quarters. People can't live with the truth. The truth is caustic and burns the heart from society and must therefore never be given full exposure. The BBC is not immune to any of this and must therefore exist within such parameters. Which doesn't mean to say that it shouldn't broadcast the true situations in an acceptable form for its viewing public to digest.

BBC TV doesn't just report on the news, it influences and forms public mood and opinion, it has to take responsibility for that.

In todays channel-hopping short attention-span media environment, when someone sees an Islamic scholar confidently giving an interview explaining why beheading the infidel is an Islamic duty, because it's on BBC, they tend to assume that person has some qualification to be speaking to the nation, and give that point of view some credibility.

If BBC management are not properly aware of how media works in society, why are they managing the BBC?

The answer to that is of course that they are not managing it. IT is managing them. They are retrospective movers as opposed to proactive movers unless the situation is blatantly obvious and detrimental towards the Beeb's reputation - as in Saville etc. Managing cover-ups (which is again after the event which had they been doing their jobs they would have known about) is about as far as anyone can come to expect of people who in the main are not qualified to handle 'truth' and , given their backgrounds, used to covering tracks or expert at getting out from under. To get to the top and have no real common-sense or proper understanding of the 'real' world is a practised art form and a province of the well-healed. Unfortunately the Beeb exists in this false world and is unlikely ever to be removed to a more rational status as long as it is required by the government to 'handle' the 'masses'.

It's suggested that the security services delayed the arrest of Choudray, as he was a convenient magnet for British Islamic State fighters and supporters, making them easier to identify.

Sounds fairly probable, but, is it really a good way to do these things? Sounds a bit lazy really.

Similar methods were, probably still are, used in the 'war on drugs'. Whether that's gone well is a matter of opinion. British institutions, BBC, police, C.P.S. etc etc seem to flollop their way along rather than sit up and pay attention. Perhaps that's the British way, tried and tested, just flollop along and see how it goes?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/21/mi5-stopped-scotland-yard-taking-choudary-down-sources-claim/

With Choudray that was a 'given'. It's the usual practice in all intelligence services and the most effective way of unearthing the opposition. That's why terrorist cells have no knowledge of each other in order that they cannot give anything away which can endanger their 'friends'.
I would have thought that most people would understand such well known methods - including Choudray himself. It enabled him to continue his maladjusted practices and kept the public informed that the terrorist threat was 'real'. It's an all win situation.
To use the argument that he had then the time to inculcate more followers of his warped beliefs is only to the good for it exposes those that would be radicalised to the authorities and enabled them to be 'tracked'.
Better the devil you know than the devils you don't. I suspect that MI5 were a little pissed off when he slipped up allowing himself to be 'snared' as it has closed down a very fruitful inlet to the dark-side. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

There's a downside to such arrangements, in that the public become accustomed to seeing dangerous people going around apparently accepted within society and beyond the reach of the law. As the sociologists say, 'monkey see monkey do'.

That's because the public consider they have much better things to do than pay attention to the 'whole' story. Snippet gobblers are the bane of the establishment. Again - a little knowledge etc etc -.
They, the public, may of course be right. Someone has to pay attention to raising families and earning livings and cannot be all things to all men. Here is where I draw a divide - we should all pay more attention to what is going on around us and think a little more rather than simply prattle. Listening is good. It helps one to understand better.

If something unacceptable is allowed to go on too long without challenge, those likely to commit such crimes are emboldened, those who find such crimes unacceptable lose confidence in the authorities and in society generally, the number of victims increases and the damage to society is considerable. This may all have to be balanced against other considerations, but, does weigh heavily in that balance.

We have accepted 'freedom of speech' as one of our values (providing it doesn't incite riot, murder or outlawed values) and enshrined it in our laws. This is a cross we all have to bear. Having done so we cannot have it both ways by picking and choosing within it. Cake and eat it.

Freedom of speech isn't really the issue, we mostly understand what is within the law and what is hostile and threatening. When the law turns a blind eye, for whatever reason, towards behaviours which should attract arrest and prosecution, drug dealing, grooming, recruiting terrorists, people smuggling and the like, damage is done. Europe is generally struggling with laws to restrict Islamic terrorism.

Making laws is one thing. Upholding them - quite another. The powers that be don't just take the straight road as they know it will lead to nowhere and leave them vulnerable to those who would usurp it. Which is why you have to accept and leave to the security forces their particular ways of doing things. It may upset you to think that nothing is being done. But in essence you are not actually aware at what is actually being done and it is to those processes that you should hold counsel and hope that the outcomes are positive to our society's requirements.

It is a balancing act, but, perhaps the balance could be a bit more in the direction we want to go.