Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Almost 4,000 people referred to UK deradicalisation scheme

"Almost 4,000 people referred to UK deradicalisation scheme last year", run a Guardian headline. According to the article, "Children aged nine and under were among 3,955 people reported to Channel in 2015, up from 1,681 in 2014".

The article, which is not open for comments, does not say what sort of radicalisation they are suspected of. Are they radical Christian Scientists, who have been inspired by reading Science and Health by Mary Eddy Baker, believe that everything is spirit and refuse to go to the doctor or take their medicine?

Are they Catholics, who are open to variety of possibilities for radicalisation? Boys as young as five have been known to turn a coffee table into a pretend altar, dress themselves in a piece of white, red, green or purple curtain material and play at celebrating Mass. Are they having to be restrained from absconding to join the Franciscans and insist on serving the homeless on the local soup run instead of doing their homework. Or are they aspiring Benedictines, who are spending every moment of their spare time learning church Latin and poring over the Liber Usualis, keeping their parents awake chanting the office of Matins in the small hours and Compline last thing at night, waiting only for the day they can enter a monastery as postulants?

Or are they radical Anglicans, who instead of going home after school, pester their parents to attend evensong at their local cathedral?

Then there are radical Jews - thirteen year old boys, fervent after their barmitzvahs, who wake the whole household when they get up at the crack of dawn to put on their phylacteries and say their morning prayers, whilst the radicalised Jewish girls drive their mothers mad, demanding strict kashrut in the kitchen, with only glatt-kosher food, separate plates, cutlery and pans for milk and meat, and separate sinks for washing up.

Dangerous stuff, this radicalisation.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...