back to article Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?

A Register reporter has been let away with a slap on the wrist after confessing to what the cops claim is an act of terrorism. According to the Metropolitan Police, anyone caught watching a sickening beheading video will be treated like a terrorist. Lawyer and legal commentator David Allen Green challenged that claim – and we …

  1. corestore

    '1984' was a WARNING. Not a bloody INSTRUCTION MANUAL.

    1. Greg J Preece

      It wasn't meant to be a cliché factory either....

      New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first.

      1. John 110

        "New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."

        What, every time??!!

        1. Greg J Preece

          What, every time??!!

          Yes, Winston. Every time.

      2. Jagged
        Unhappy

        "New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."

        - I hope you mean "read 1984" and not "read the Daily Mail"

      3. NumptyScrub
        Happy

        quote: "It wasn't meant to be a cliché factory either....

        New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."

        Watching a video is not an act of terrorism. Terrorism is an act of violence directed against the state.

        The word the Met officer wanted is sedition, which is an act of promoting or fostering discontent with the state in a non-violent manner (using violence makes it terrorism).

        Watching a video is not sedition either though. You would need to promote or distribute the video for it to be an act of sedition.

        For simply watching a video to be considered a crime under existing terrorism legislation, that legislation would have to be so very broad you could argue it was deliberately ignoring what terrorism actually is. What is the betting shouting "Allah won't like you doing that" at someone in the street "may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation" in the UK?

        1. chris lively

          "Sedition" isn't as catchy a phrase as "terrorism". I'm not convinced most people would know what sedition even is.

          1. heyrick Silver badge
            Coat

            I'm not convinced most people would know what sedition even is.

            That green gooey gunk you get at the bottom of a fish tank?

            1. Lapun Mankimasta
              Holmes

              That green gooey gunk

              precisely. sedition occurs when rocks are weathered and the sediments get washed down into a lake or the sea ... as happens in, you know, CJ Dennis' The Sedimental Bloke

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            > I'm not convinced most people would know what sedition even is.

            Modifying your config files via judicious application of sed patterns, isn't it?

            Maybe we should sed them politicians out of existence.¹

            ¹ And please nobody mention 1409, however much of an SQL fan you are.

            1. Anonymaus Cowark

              1409

              Ah! The mandatory xkcd reference. Thanks

        2. GotThumbs
          Facepalm

          But, but what if....

          the video was an instructional video on how to create a bomb?

          My point is....the context of the video is (and should be) a SIGNIFICANT factor in any governments concern regarding who views the video and where are they located.

          Would you be concerned if the police did NOT look into the chap who lives next door to you or works in the same building as you....who has been watching multiple videos created by known terrorist organizations?

          Just because some sick bastard chooses to view the beheading of a fellow journalist, he seems to want to inflame his local government.

          We should all remember that the term 'Journalist' is very, VERY LOOSELY used these days.

          IMO. There is ZERO information to be learned, buy viewing this video, but the terrorists will LOVE to see the view numbers jump. It's what they want.

          Why not be the bigger person and choose to disappoint them by NOT viewing it.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: But, but what if....

            @ GotThumbs

            "Just because some sick bastard chooses to view the beheading"

            Strange. It was only a couple of hundred years ago that the Brits and French got a good afternoon's entertainment out of public executions. What's the difference between that and watching a video, other than the technology.

            Some of them not that long ago weren't just beheadings either. What about a nice bit of flaying alive, or hanging, drawing and quartering.

            Bear in mind that most of these people seem to be living in a period far removed from the current period - or want to take life back to those times, so it fits very well with their philosophy.

        3. P. Lee Silver badge
          Holmes

          > What is the betting shouting "Allah won't like you doing that" at someone in the street "may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation" in the UK?

          Isn't that the point of the legislation? Make everything illegal and then you can just prosecute those who aren't your friends.

          1. Andrew Meredith

            "Isn't that the point of the legislation? Make everything illegal and then you can just prosecute those who aren't your friends."

            And where do we end up if we do that ??!

            France .. of course ;-)

        4. IT veteran

          Ah, but they can't use the anti-terrorism laws against sedition, can they? No locking you up for 14 (?) days without charge, no secret courts etc.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first.

        Read it you say? Not only I've read it plenty of times, I'M A BLOODY SUBSCRIBER!!!

        Oh! You meant the book? :(

      5. Stevie Silver badge

        Bah!

        I have to read The Daily Mail?

        Damn you, this is just like what happened in Orwell's 1984.

        (Doubleplusgood New Rule though. Tried to upvote it twice.)

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        ... if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first.

        Well the article itself rather worryingly deployed "sickening" without quotes or the required minimum of irony, so I think you're getting your offence a bit out of proportion. Anyway, no one's read Tony Blairs autobiography, so what do we use for comparison?

      7. corestore

        "New rule: if you're going to constantly compare X government action to 1984 in the usual tiring Daily Mail way, you have to have read it first."

        1. I never read the Daily Mail.

        2. Newspeak.

        3. Thoughtcrime

        3. 'That's not watching a video, that's supporting terrorism'

        4. 'That's not free speech - we'd NEVER curtail free speech - that's *propaganda*'

        5. 'That's not a rifle, we would never ban rifles, that's an *assault weapon*.'

        Redefine it, isolate it, destroy it, change the meme, change the language. 1984.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          > Redefine it, isolate it, destroy it, change the meme, change the language. 1984.

          "Marriage"

      8. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. NoneSuch

      Having a government dictate what you can see, read, and hear for "your protection" is the first step to despotism. It only increases over time and eventually leads to a Little Red Book or Mein Kampf becoming leading literature for the masses.

      Governments work for us. We tell them what to do. Once governments begin dictating edicts to the people, you no longer live in a democracy.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"

        1. Someone Else Silver badge
          Coat

          "[...] Governments should be afraid of their people!"

          They are. Why do you think they are acting this way?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Frankly I am more afraid of the people I see than I am of the government.

        3. Anomalous Cowshed

          "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"

          But that's precisely the problem: all governments are afraid of their people, which is why they spend so much time, money and resources, one might even say, ingenuity, in attempting to control or repress them. Because as government inevitably tends towards "government of the masses by the elites" it becomes increasingly important to the elites to remain in government and avoid being lawfully or violently demoted to the ranks of the governed masses.

          1. Hargrove

            Re: "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"

            @ Anomalous Cowshed:

            Because as government inevitably tends towards "government of the masses by the elites" it becomes increasingly important to the elites to remain in government and avoid being lawfully or violently demoted to the ranks of the governed masses.

            Nicely put.

            For what it's worth, at least in the US, several distinctions are useful.

            There is the Government in Theory--a conceptual republic whose just powers derive from the will of those governed which is reflected in the rule of law.

            There is the government as actually specified in the formal laws of a nation. Because power does not yield, these inevitably become disconnected from the will of the people.

            Finally there are those who govern. For the same reason, (power does yield), they act uncompromisingly for the benefit of special interests who perpetuate their power, with increasing disregard for both the concept of a rule of law and the written laws themselves.

            The aggregate message of the reports we see here in the Register is that the People comprising society at large need to become critically discriminating with regard to the difference between proper government and the actions of those who govern. And, to begin to take organized steps to change the latter at the polls, while we still can.

            Never forget Miriam Carey.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"

              "People comprising society at large need to become critically discriminating with regard to the difference between proper government and the actions of those who govern."

              For this, you need the people to be adequately educated. But for those who govern, adequately educated means "be barely able to read and write, and vote us to keep in government".

              As Juvenal wrote... Panem et circenses (Bread and Circus)...

        4. Keep Refrigerated

          Governments should be afraid of their people?

          You know, for me, this quote has always been problematic. The way I see it, governments are afraid of the people... which is why they are increasingly stripping our rights and monitoring our communications.

          Of course "Governments should work for their people" unfortunately doesn't quite sound so dramatic.

          1. skeptical i
            Meh

            Re: Governments should be afraid of their people?

            @KeepRefrigerated, re: "Of course 'Governments should work for their people' unfortunately does not quite sound so dramatic."

            Problem is, for /which/ people should my government be working? We the people who elect our representatives? Or them the people who fund the campaigns? Very occasionally these two constituencies have concerns in common, but ....

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @AC <No subject>

          "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; Governments should be afraid of their people!"

          Looks like we have two despots already according to your vote tally.

          Or maybe Clegg and Cameron read El Reg?

      2. Charles Manning

        "Once governments begin dictating edicts to the people, you no longer live in a democracy."

        Well you voted for them, so it is a democracy.

        Parties only develop their policies in response to what the public gives them feedback on by voting. Like any other manufacturer/service provider, they sell what the punters buy.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Charles Manning

          "Well you voted for them, so it is a democracy."

          Huh? I didn't vote for this shower of crap that is in power right now... I do however think that there should be a general election instead of using a 'kingmaker' (whom was Clegg) to grant Cameron what he needs to be prime minister though.

        2. Graham Marsden
          WTF?

          @Charles Manning - "Like any other manufacturer/service provider, they sell what the punters buy"

          No, they sell what the suckers will believe.

          For example the 2010 Tory Party Manifesto said "We will stop the forced closure of A&E and maternity wards, so that people have better access to local services, and give mothers a real choice over where to have their baby, with NHS funding following their decisions."

          But in 2012 the Tories attempt to force the closure of the A&E and maternity ward at Lewisham Hospital, however, fortunately, they were defeated in the courts.

          That's just *one* small example of what lies politicians will peddle to get people to vote for them, knowing full well that, once they're in power, they can do what the hell they like for the next four or five years before they peddle a *new* set of lies (and bribe people with their own money) to get them to vote for them again.

          This makes a total mockery of the concept of democracy.

          1. James Micallef Silver badge

            Re: "Like any other manufacturer/service provider, they sell what the punters buy"

            I wonder if a constitutional* change could be in order - Political parties need to present in their electoral manifesto not just 'blah-blah' but proposed legislation. Parliament procedure is run by civil service and by constitutional law, only laws in the manifesto can be proposed.

            I know parties will argue that this binds them to much, doesn't allow flexibility etc, however I would argue that this is exactly what is needed. A lot of legislation is knee-jerk reaction to current situation and poorly thought out / rushed through, and mostly unneeded and based on political posturing about the 'cause du jour'. If legislation is good, it will always be applicable. legislation made for special cases is usually super-crappy. And if they want 'more flexibility' that's easy - limit governments to 2 or 3 year terms

            *yeah, I know UK hasn't one, but equivalent basic laws on governance that cannot be changed by the party currently in power, needs national referendum 2/3 majority to change type-of-thing

      3. Shannon Jacobs
        Holmes

        I am strongly opposed to censorship, but this beheading video manages to cross my line because the making of the video with the intention that people watch it and be frightened because of the video was an intrinsic part of the motivation of the vicious crime. If they knew that no one would see the video, then they might not have killed him, and anyone deliberately acting to distribute that video should be traced and arrested for aiding a crime or encouraging future crimes. By making terrorism succeed, that person is guaranteeing future acts of terrorism.

        I actually think that professional journalists might be required for the sake of their work to watch it, but the general principle here is to negate the murderers' intentions by NOT watching the video. The sad punchline is that the victim died for the sake of freedom of speech, the underlying principle of serious journalism.

        1. DrBobMatthews

          A very slippery slope to go down. No government has any right whatsoever to decide on what is acceptable for an individual should watch. Attempting to use flawed legislation introduced as a knee jerk reaction is always going to fail from mostly lack of respect. In todays overburdened legistaive nightmare of a world, the John Pilger photograph of the little Vietnamese girl on fire running up the road, would probably have been banned material by the Met Police and the government.

          I have seen stills from the video and it is disgusting, but it also in its pictoral form sends two messages.

          1. The "executioner" is sufficiently arrogant and brutal as not to care about the consequences.

          2. This is the world like it or not that the West has helped to create by its heavy handed blind incursions into other countries. We are all of us partly culpable for creating the conditions that allowed this to happen.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            1. The "executioner" is sufficiently arrogant and brutal as not to care about the consequences.

            In the wider sense of what it may bring down on ISIS perhaps, but he's worried enough from a personal perspective to cover his face.

          2. NumptyScrub

            quote: "A very slippery slope to go down. No government has any right whatsoever to decide on what is acceptable for an individual should watch."

            Child porn.

            That's how effective the "think of the children" argument is. I'm conflicted myself; I agree that the passive act of viewing something should not be, of itself, an offense, but I suspect I would still be comfortable agreeing with a guilty verdict for someone who was found simply watching child porn, as long as it was beyond reasonable doubt that they intended to watch that content.

            I categorically cannot agree that watching a video is terrorism though. The act has to be violent to be terrorism, and watching a video is not a violent act.

          3. <shakes head>

            i do belive you are mistaken, this is thee result of the west removing it's heavy hand from those areas (post 1945), this is what is was like before the days of empire, everyone breaking into smaller and smaller groups and a us and them mentality. with empire the Empire was always them and so everyone got on a whole lot better.

    3. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Eastasia

      I'm sure I recall a year or two back the government was considering supporting the likes of ISIS because they were fighting against Assad in Syria.

      But I must be mistaken, because we are at war with ISIS. We have always been at war with ISIS.

      1. DrBobMatthews

        Re: Eastasia

        I agree, but what it boils down to is the ridiculously flawed doctrine so beloved by duplicitous politicians, "My enemies enemy is my friend" wow has that been torn to shreds over the last 20 years.

        After the illegal war in Iraq and the nonexistent WMD's it should have been change to my supposed friends are my enemies friends.

      2. Bumpy Cat

        Re: Eastasia

        The government wasn't going to support ISIS or al-Nusra. Stop repeating such nonsense. They were going to support the FSA, who are a broad, mostly secular resistance movement. However, Assad is not stupid; he ignored ISIS/al-Nusra and focussed all the attacks of the Syrian government on the liberal/secular opposition; he released 500+ Islamist insurgents from jail to bolster ISIS; some reports say that the Syrian govt even came to an arrangement with ISIS/al-Nusra to not attack each other, allowing both of them to concentrate on the FSA.

        The result: ISIS can claim to be the bulk of the resistance to the Syrian government. The Syrian government can point to ISIS and say "See? Our opposition are sectarian fascist murderers!". A win for both of them - and a loss for anyone who calls themself liberal or secular.

    4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: corestore

      "'1984' was a WARNING. Not a bloody INSTRUCTION MANUAL." So you have the barbaric and totally unjustified beheading of a reporter by an Islamist, simply because the reporter was a Yank, in a propaganda video that the Islamists want to have distributed as widely as possible, and your immediate response is to criticise the government's efforts to block their propaganda? You are seriously in need of a reality check.

      1. NumptyScrub

        Re: corestore

        quote: "So you have the barbaric and totally unjustified beheading of a reporter by an Islamist, simply because the reporter was a Yank, in a propaganda video that the Islamists want to have distributed as widely as possible, and your immediate response is to criticise the government's efforts to block their propaganda? You are seriously in need of a reality check."

        Show me where in law it is an actual offense to watch that video, and I shall immediately shut up.

        Letting people know about propaganda is one thing (although Streisand Effect, right?) but an official statement implying that simply viewing it makes you a terrorist is incomprehendably stupid. Nobody that far divorced from either reality or common sense should be in such a position of power in the first place.

        They may as well have said that "making a cheese sandwich may constitute an offense under Terrorism legislation". It's as patently ridiculous and just as unenforcable, IMO, whilst also being exactly as true (for any given value of "may"). It's also just as damning of both the apparent vagueness of the existing Terrorism legislation, and the Service's apparent (lack of) understanding of it.

        I'm going to make myself some cheese sandwiches for lunch tomorrow as a deliberate act of sedition.

        You'll note that at no point have I condoned the actions perpetrated in this video. I completely disagree with the act and with the message it apparently portrays, and idiots like that have my utmost contempt. What also has my contempt, though, is the way that at least some people in the Service think that anything they don't like the sound of is automatically illegal, without any reference to actual legislation (and a complete inability to quote legislation to back up their previous statements). That, sir, is a fucking diabolical state of affairs (pun intended).

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: NumptyScrub Re: corestore

          Your post translates as the Worldy equivalent of "me, me, me!" Wake up, there are more important thing to get rage about than your imagined 'censorship' by The Man.

          1. BlueGreen

            Re: NumptyScrub corestore @Plump & Bleaty

            Hi again mein kleine plumpdroid, you're not answering the Nice Mr. Numpty's post, his points seem valid.

            1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  2. Khaptain Silver badge

    Two girls and a cup

    "Two girls and a cup" - Easy to make a mistake about what you are going to see.

    "Beheading of a British Journalist". - not a lot of error possible here.

    Should everyone that looks at the crucifixion scene or a bloody Christ dying on the cross also be considered as terrorists ?

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: Two girls and a cup

      Should everyone that looks at the crucifixion scene or a bloody Christ dying on the cross also be considered as terrorists ?

      Not if they consider the crucifixion a just and lawful act. That would make them supporters of the Imperial Roman hegemony, not terrorists. However if they didn't consider it just or lawful, that might risk them being categorised as opponents of the regime, and potentially rebels, insurgents or terrorists.

      So not the best comparison, really.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Two girls and a cup

      But an allied general shooting a Vietnamese prisoner in the side of the head is an iconic moment?

      Does it come down to which side is getting killed ? So Watching "Das Boot" is a war crime

      1. corestore

        Re: Two girls and a cup

        Almost nobody seems to know the truth behind that iconic Vietnamese execution pic. It was a good guy executing a very bad guy indeed:

        "But, when you learn the story behind the man who is being executed in this photo, the image and the reasoning behind the execution becomes a little bit clearer.

        This man’s name was Nguyen Van Lem, but he was also known as Captain Bay Lop. Lem was no civilian; he was a member of the Viet Cong. Not just any member, either, he was an assassin and the leader of a Viet Cong death squad who had been targeting and killing South Vietnamese National Police officers and their families.

        Lem’s team was attempting to take down a number of South Vietnamese officials. They may have even been plotting to kill the shooter himself, Major General Nguyen Ngoc Loan. It is said that Lem had recently been responsible for the murder of one of Loan’s most senior officers, as well as the murder of the officer’s family.

        According to accounts at the time, when South Vietnamese officers captured Lem, he was more or less caught in the act, at the site of a mass grave. This grave contained the bodies of no less than seven South Vietnamese police officers, as well as their families, around 34 bound and shot bodies in total. Eddie Adams, the photojournalist who took the shot, backs up this story. Lem’s widow also confirmed that her husband was a member of the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong), and that he disappeared before the beginning of the Tet Offensive."

        1. Dave Bell

          Re: Two girls and a cup

          The word "execution" suggests suggests a legal process, which isn't apparent, and it's been used in both cases. But I can understand the death of Nguyen Van Lem. This current video is something very different: I can understand why watching it might be part of a pattern, but it's also a clear record of a crime. Can we really say that anyone who watches it is a terrorist? How many investigators does that line make a terrorist?

          And sure the Met understand why intent matters?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Two girls and a cup

        So Watching "Das Boot" is a war crime

        No, but watching the butchered sub two hour version ought to be considered heresy.

    3. Cosmo

      Re: Two girls and a cup

      I knew EXACTLY what I was going to see when I watched two girls, one cup....

      1. phuzz Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Two girls and a cup

        Well, it did contain two girls, and one cup, so you can't say the title was misleading, it just didn't cover everything...

    4. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

      Re: Two girls and a cup

      I'm sure I should know this, but I don't get out much - what exactly is two girls and a cup? From the context I suspect it's something I really don't want to Google!

      1. Caesarius
        Childcatcher

        Re: Two girls and a cup

        http://xkcd.com/467/

      2. Marcelo Rodrigues

        Re: Two girls and a cup

        "From the context I suspect it's something I really don't want to Google!"

        It's something You don't want to know. Believe me.

        Ugh.

      3. CmdrX3

        Re: Two girls and a cup

        what exactly is two girls and a cup?

        A couple of girls filling and sharing a cup of something that a. shouldn't be in a cup and b. shouldn't be shared.

      4. Benjol

        Re: Two girls and a cup

        I didn't know.

        Now I do.

        I confirm your suspicion.

    5. Peter Simpson 1
      Happy

      Re: Two girls and a cup

      Should everyone that looks at the crucifixion scene or a bloody Christ dying on the cross also be considered as terrorists ?

      [insert "Life of Brian" joke here]

      // I'm Brian of Nazareth...and so's my wife

    6. Lapun Mankimasta

      the crucifixion scene

      Damn! there goes my copy of Guernica! PC Plod'll mistake it for an instruction manual.

      1. Stevie Silver badge

        Re: the crucifixion scene

        If you own a print of the Picasso work you'll be done as a drug fiend too.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Lapun Wankinmasta Re: the crucifixion scene

        ".....there goes my copy of Guernica!....." But your example, the painting Guernica, is in itself another propaganda piece and an example of the supposedly unquestionability of a viewpoint of an historical act. If propaganda is not challenged then it can soon grow into being accepted as 'fact', and sympathisers in the UK will soon start repeating the myth that ISIS were 'justified' in the act due to the American intervention.

        The story behind the propaganda myth of Geurnica is a good example. The Republicans in the Spanish Civil War had a very active propaganda arm that co-operated with sympathetic Communist, Socialist and Anarchist groups all over the World, in hyping such events. Guernica represents one of their most successful efforts, so much so it has completely obscured both the fact that both sides routinely bombed Spanish civilians, but also their propagandizing of other acts of aerial bombing from the period. A similar propaganda effort was made around the earlier bombing of Getafe near Madrid (which spawned the immortal line "If you tolerate this then your children will be next" on a propaganda poster which included a photo of a dead child who was not killed at Getafe - http://airminded.org/2009/10/11/the-non-atrocity-of-getafe/). The hysterics around Geurnica reflected the Republic's and their allies' frustrations and desperation at how the fighting in the Cantabrian pocket had turned against them, mainly due to the Nationalist's more effective use of air power. They wanted international popular opinion to turn against the Nationalists, and they especially wanted some form of international intervention to curtail the activities of the Italian and German 'volunteers' manning the bombers that were pounding Republican ground forces. This was more than hypocritical given that the Republicans were happily using Russian crews in SB-2 bombers against Nationalist towns and cities, and had been the first in the War to employ modern bombers (in the shape of French-supplied Potez 540 aircraft) to attack civilian areas under Nationalist control.

        So, you have merely and unwittingly supplied a good reason to block such propaganda before it becomes 'fact'.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ---- This reporter phoned the Metropolitan Police and asked: "I watched the James Foley video. Am I a terrorist?" ----

    Did you really ask that, verbatim?

    1. gazthejourno

      I can confirm that's pretty much the same as what I heard him ask the plod press office down the phone.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > I can confirm that's pretty much the same as what I heard him ask the plod press office down the phone.

        Ok, Gaz. So who won the bet then? :)

      2. h4rm0ny

        Did he preface it with "I'm a journalist" ? I'm just wondering if those of us with less press credentials would have received a different answer.

  4. Steve Todd

    Could they not lock him up

    For crimes against journalism? There's plenty of evidence of that.

    1. Ted Treen
      Pint

      Re: Could they not lock him up

      You deserve a pint for that...

  5. Fihart

    Collective Delusion.

    a.k.a Religion

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Collective Delusion.

      a.k.a atheism

      Fixed it for you.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Collective Delusion.

        Woah. Someone who thinks that not having imaginary friends in the sky who are looking out for him is a form of delusion.

        Well, it takes all kind of people.

        Me, I'm into Lovecraft and stuff.

        1. sabroni Silver badge

          Re: imaginary friends in the sky

          All your really showing there is that you have no understanding of religion and you're crap at taking the piss. Just paraphrasing the same stupid "man in the clouds" comment is not satire.

          Science is about how, religion is about why. They don't really overlap.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: imaginary friends in the sky

            Science is about how, religion is about why

            From what I can see so far, religion is more about why not.

            Personally, I don't really mind what imaginary friend one prefers, provided they don't hassle other people/me with it.

            1. Fungus Bob Silver badge
              Trollface

              Re: imaginary friends in the sky

              "Science is about how, religion is about why

              From what I can see so far, religion is more about why not."

              From what I can see, religion is about answering the question "What is wrong with us and what do we do about it?"

              Looking at it that way, Atheism could be a religion. As could eugenics, Maximized Living or Mary Kay.

              Just gotta cause trouble...

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
            Thumb Down

            Re: imaginary friends in the sky

            "Science is about how, religion philosophy is about why"

            There, FTFY.

          3. Caesarius
            Pint

            Re: Science is about how, religion is about why.

            That's always what I say.

          4. Dave Bell

            Re: imaginary friends in the sky

            There I was in a bar with the Astronomer Royal and a Jesuit Vatican Astronomer, looking at the latest pictures of an asteroid, and we agreed that humans were good at picking out patterns and seeing things that didn't really exist, and part of that was asking "Why?" A lot of that is science. But many of the details of the universe have to be the way they are just so something like us can be here to see it. In a sense, the universe exists just so that we can exist.

            "It's ineffable." I said.

            We all nodded and ordered another round. Why do you think philosophers have a reputation for drinking a lot?

            1. Omgwtfbbqtime Silver badge

              Religion is like a penis

              Its fine to have one.

              Its ok to be proud of it.

              Just don't whip it out in public and wave it in other peoples faces!!

              (Disclosure: I consider myself a Militant Agnostic - I don't know and NOR THE FUCK DO YOU!)

              1. <shakes head>

                Re: Religion is like a penis

                your basic view being that you know as much as every other person?

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Devil

                Re: Religion is like a penis

                Interesting disclosure. Can I take it that you have the same stance on Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot circling the Sun between ourselves and Mars?

                If you do, you're probably a crack-pot. Though one circling the Sun on Earth rather than your own independent orbit.

                1. Omgwtfbbqtime Silver badge

                  Re: Religion is like a penis @Moultoneer

                  That appears more cosmology, unsuported by observation I may add, than religion and not relevant to this discussion.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Religion is like a penis @Omgwtfbbqtime

                    Bertrand Russell's point is that dogmatists must prove their dogma, the rest of us are not obliged to disprove it.

                    In this example the relevance of Bertrand's argument is that it is for the deists to prove that their deity exists, the onus of proof is on them, not the atheists.

                    Your original comment in support of agnosticism was that no one knows if deities exist. If you apply your same logic to Russell's celestial teapot you have to agree that it might exist, right up to the point that you can definitively prove that it does not.

                    1. h4rm0ny

                      Re: Religion is like a penis @Omgwtfbbqtime

                      >>"Your original comment in support of agnosticism was that no one knows if deities exist. If you apply your same logic to Russell's celestial teapot you have to agree that it might exist, right up to the point that you can definitively prove that it does not."

                      Yes. That is logically correct. The point is that until it becomes relevant to me to make a decision on whether or not there's a teapot in Space, I really don't care. If someone challenges me as to whether there is a teapot in Space I'll shrug and say I don't think there is. But I wont be intellectually dishonest and say that because I have seen no evidence of a teapot that is evidence there isn't. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I wasn't saying the case is or isn't anything. I was just pointing out that the correct term for saying you don't know is agnosticism, the correct term for saying there is no god is atheist and that the two are not the same even though some people would like to present atheism differently. No-one has successfully proved there isn't a god as yet. Ergo, agnosticism is the only fully supportable position that doesn't rely on preference.

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Religion is like a penis

                > Just don't whip it out in public and wave it in other peoples faces!!

                What about hen parties?

        2. h4rm0ny

          Re: Collective Delusion.

          Atheism and most religions both make authoritative statements about what is without being able to prove it. Religion argues that something is despite lack of evidence. Atheism argues that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Agnosticism - stating we don't know either way, is the only logically thorough position.

        3. <shakes head>

          Re: Collective Delusion.

          only if they are imaginary

      2. Frederic Bloggs

        Re: Collective Delusion.

        Atheism is a bona fide religion.

        1. AbelSoul

          Re: Atheism is a bona fide religion...

          In the same way that bald is a bona fide hair-style.

        2. hplasm Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Collective Delusion.

          Bald is a bona fide hair colour, too.

          Oh wait...

        3. Peter Johnstone
          Facepalm

          Re: Collective Delusion.

          Atheism is a religion in the same way that off is a TV Channel, Bald is a hair colour and not collecting stamps is a hobby.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Collective Delusion.

            There is no such thing as "not collecting stamps". You have to be actively doing something. The "not doing anything" is very hard to do, see science for why.

            So people who comment on everyone having a religion, are commenting on how everyone has a goal or source of their direction in life.

            Those saying they have no religion, are usually commenting how they do not believe in certain particular versions of a God or gods. It also includes those who believe they have no goals or directions, internal or external.

            To many, "Religion" has many different meanings. So it's less that people disagree, and more that they do not understand each others definitions.

            When we become less involved in proving others wrong, shouting at them and fighting, we instead find out we have a lot in common. As always said, check your own house before pointing fingers at the other.

            1. Stevie Silver badge

              Re: Collective Delusion.

              You missed the point. The many who misuse the word "Religion" to mean philosophy of life or obsession notwithstanding, religion is a belief that there is a point to it all. One or more "gods" are usually involved, and invoked as a cosmic doorstop whenever the thinking gets too hard, and thanked whenever sheer chance caused the believer to personally not become involved in some catastrophe or other.

              The real difference (for me) between anyone's religion and my atheism is that I *never* stop to say "this event could only be possible in the complete absence of a creator" and I rarely waste brainpower worrying about lack of gods and random universal chaos because it doesn't work that way.

              People with a strong and firm belief in a creator and life after death often find themselves pondering the whichness of the why and can't understand that I simply don't, in the way I don't think about tennis or horseback riding or how paper is made unless I have some definite question about those subjects.

              I am happy not knowing where reality all came from and the prospect of dying *still* not knowing (I wouldn't spurn the knowledge if it was there to be had of course). I don't need gods to invent it because they don't solve anything. Show me a real honest to Offler god and my next question is "Well, who made it"? All a creator does is drop a curtain in front of an unreachable problem horizon.

              I've bent a few brain cells wondering about where the universe is, and can appreciate that for some the comfort of saying "this far and no further shall ye look" is appealing. The problem is that then they get upset when I don't share their views and start talking "atheism is religion" nonsense.

              As for life after death, when asked once by a friend where I thought we went after death I answered "The same place the numbers go when you turn off your calculator". The question seems meaningless to me.

              But I'm no evangelist, determined to make you all see the sense in my argument because it doesn't work that way. I'd be more likely to demand everyone stop thinking about tennis (except it would not occur to me to discuss tennis most days).

              1. Hargrove

                Re: Collective Delusion.

                @Stevie, et al:

                I looked up the definition of religion and found it wanting. For the first time in memory, the OED disappointed. Previous definitions that I was familiar with made a subtle distinction between belief and worship, and organized ritual practice, with the latter being a key attribute of religion..

                That this is a useful distinction seems clear, given the long history of different sects who believe in and worship the same God slaughtering one another under different religious banners. But, the OED, being divinely inspired and inerrant . . .

                Atheism is not a religion, but it is--in a very real sense--a theological position. (Namely, that there ain't no Theos.) This is a position that a rational person can take. However, other theological positions can also be rationally taken.

                In that regard the statement

                The real difference (for me) between anyone's religion and my atheism is that I *never* stop to say "this event could only be possible in the complete absence of a creator"

                strikes me as less a statement of difference between believer and atheist than a fine distinction between authoritarian fundamentalism (on either side) and willingness to confront what Einstein characterized as "the central mystery" of the universe on its own terms. As a general rule, I've found most atheists to be of a fundamentalist mindset, asserting proof for the non-existence of anything transcending human knowledge. Nice to learn that there is a more open-minded breed of atheist out there.

                I think on the whole the normal distribution of humankind tends to the authoritarian end of the scale. Their belief in the authority is categorical proof of the rightness of their belief. (See [St. Paul] [Dawkins] says right there that . . . ) As a result they tend to be the most numerous and loudest voices in any theological debate.

                This tends to drown out the voices of millions who are open to wonder and to the idea that there may be mysteries that transcend human understanding. (Not talking New Age crystals, here. Rather, those unanswerable whys Stevie raises--Schoedinger's Cat is dead, but WHY did it die? We can't know and that's a main point of that thought experiment.)

                That's why, without being evangelical on the point, it seems to me that devout agnosticism is the most constructive metaphysical position to assume.

                1. Stevie Silver badge

                  Re: Definitions

                  Again, you try and define my viewpoint in terms of your own and then discuss it as a variation on a theme. My atheism is only a theistic philosophy because of a trick of linguistics. Any understanding you have achieved of how I stand on the subject is fundamentally flawed as it is based on a false premise.

                  I'll try again, but not in an attempt to convert you.

                  I think the one thing all religions share that *might* be the definition you are looking for is the belief in the continuation of the human self after death.

                  It's phrased differently of course. People speak of souls but what they really speak of is the Self.

                  I have concluded, based on the evidence available to me, that humans have no undying part. To me it is evident that the self is the mind, which in turn is an emergent behavior of the brain's natural complex recursive activity. No brain, no self.

                  Understanding that this complex brain is possible to develop without some sort of helping hand is made easier if on spends some time thinking about massively parallel evolutionary processes over geological timescales.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  @Hartgrove (Re: Collective Delusion.)

                  Sir, you seem to have managed to offend both atheists and non-atheists there. Or at least those amongst them who are afraid of the possibility that the other side *might* be right.

                  It is interesting to see, now that I live abroad, how much Anglo-saxon (if not Germanic in general) culture seems to care about the theological debate (cue wave of downvotes and comments about "X culture, it's *them* who are really obsessed, not me", etc., etc.) :-)

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Collective Delusion.

                Hi Stevie

                > You missed the point.

                Maybe my philosophy lecturers did, it is possible.

                However, what seems to annoy you, if I understood you correctly, is proselytism or more in general, some people's attitude's about belief or non-belief, rather than (privately held) belief in itself, no?

                Although some groups may favour proselytising and/or a "we have the truth" attitude (I'm not saying any actually do--I haven't paid much attention to these sort of practicalities), that's completely alien to the concept of belief in itself and in the abstract.

                In any case, thank you for your detailed explanation. :)

                P.S.: Mr. Hartgrove sums it up very nicely in his own post. I'm afraid that I have never been religious and I have never been much of an atheist either, so I am unfortunately not in a position to discuss the disadvantages of either.

                1. Stevie Silver badge

                  Re: Collective Delusion.

                  I'm not annoyed.

                  This whole matter is of little import to me (like tennis). I've tried to explain that so you can get some traction in your own thinking instead of trying to understand atheism as a sub-genre of your own belief system.

                  Of course, I am failing because to a person who Believes, the core of their faith is likely the most important thing in the world. It would be difficult for them under those circumstances to see that I wouldn't be putting my "Atheism" (big A is probably the way they see the word) in a similar central position in my life, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record it doesn't work that way.

                  I didn't take philosophy courses at college so I cannot engage you in twenty dollar word exchanges but I *think* the relevant term from that field is "category error".

                  People seem to want to classify atheism as the obverse side of the religion coin. I'm telling them that as far as I am concerned there is no coin.

          2. P. Lee Silver badge

            Re: Collective Delusion.

            > Atheism is a religion in the same way that off is a TV Channel, Bald is a hair colour and not collecting stamps is a hobby.

            "Worship" ("Worthy-ship") had the orginal meaning of "to kiss towards" - to what or whom do you give your ultimate allegience. It isn't about chanting or happy-clappy marlarky. Think more a vassel giving their service/allegience to a feudal lord. Everything they do is then in the service of their master. What do you put first in your life?

            The question posed by religion is, "who do you worship?" or "to what do you give your highest allegience." Atheists are usually humanists, so they normally "worship" humanity (themselves or the collective) in that they put humanity or a human (normally themselves) first. Some atheists are animal-rights activists put non-humans first. Some might think that the stars are the key to life and so give the most credence to an astrologer who can let them know what is going on and what they should do.

            When picking something/one to give your allegience to, I'd ask, "what are the values shown, expected and resulting?" and "what is your documented track-record and plan for dealing with the big problems I face?"

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Collective Delusion.

              When picking something/one to give your allegience to, I'd ask, "what are the values shown, expected and resulting?" and "what is your documented track-record and plan for dealing with the big problems I face?"

              I'd add "am I sure its not made up codswallop?"

              Depressingly, the more usual reason is merely "because I'm not thinking straight, and worry I will end up toast in some unspeakable manner if I don't", or for a few "who cares if its true, but theres a bucket of personal power and privelege at the end of this rainbow, so lets tick them boxes and party".

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Collective Delusion.

          > Atheism is a bona fide religion.

          Not sure why Mr. Bloggs got downvoted there, since he makes a rather plausible point (I won't go into details here though).

          After all, in order to be an Atheist, you have to take a position as to the existence, or otherwise, of any deities. It's (etymologically even) the zero-deity position--cf. monotheism and polytheism.

          One problem might be that English does not really have a word for the absence of religion ("irreligious" is somewhat ambiguous), in the way that e.g., French has (see "laicisime", but note that although the term is recognised by many non-French speakers, its contemporary meaning is often misunderstood by them).

          To put it very simply: an atheist denies the existence of any gods, a monotheist says there is only one, a polytheist goes for one or more, often the more the better. In contrast, "un laïque" is simply out of the debate--note by the way that this is not the same as being agnostic: an agnostic person may be "laïque" or not. They may even be religious, although they probably won't be atheists, as being an agnostic atheist would imply making an explicit claim as regards the (non-)existence of deities while at the same time admitting that his claim cannot be proved.

          Purely out of intellectual curiosity, I would be interested to know the arguments of some of those who downvoted the chap above.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Collective Delusion.

            After all, in order to be an Atheist, you have to take a position as to the existence, or otherwise, of any deities.

            A bit unfair though to suggest atheism is a religion, since the only reason atheists even have to contemplate whether imaginary friends exist is because others claim they do, often forcefully. So no believers, no atheism, and without those who would otherwise be predisposed to atheism doing anything at all. As someone earlier puts it, theres no such thing as 'not collecting stamps'.

            But getting away from the point, I think the religious like to define atheism as a religion (apart from the fact it annoys atheists greatly and makes the religious feel better) because it makes atheism a nice comprehensible 'shape', for want of a better word, of the kind they are more familiar with refuting or attacking - usually another religion or the 'dark side' of their own perhaps. Its noticeable in all the current multi faith mutual backslapping that goes on in the UK about 'community', 'united against terror' etc, none of them in the slightest even acknowledge the existence of atheism, humanism or anything else, when they are talking about doing good etc, because it just isn't something they can engage with, and perhaps way down inside it offends and even embarasses them that people without a magical script to read from can still behave largely with morality.

            I've spent an awful lot of time arguing the toss with believers of all shades; I used to regularly invite one of the local Jehovahs in for a bit of competitive argument over coffee, but probably the most challenging was being stuck in a closed compartment of an almost non-stop train for 56 hours with six extremely devout muslims headed off on a pilgrimage - the only time any science got a look in was at prayer times, when going through winding valleys required a compass and a bit of light maths to find Mecca. I personally get very bored with the religious trying to stick me in a box, as doing so usually defines the entire conversation, leaving little room for discussion of anything more interesting. None of them seem able to imagine that its possible to go through life as an atheist without constantly struggling with why you don't believe - I suppose that doubt is a constant theme in both Christianity and Islam.

            While I enjoy a good religious argument, I really would prefer a world in which a label like atheist just wasn't needed, or at least where others would show the tolerance they demand for themselves and stop trying to stick me in a box to assuage their own insecurities.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Collective Delusion.

              > the only reason atheists even have to contemplate whether imaginary friends exist is because others claim they do

              AC, try reversing that statement and see if it could plausibly work for other people.

          2. h4rm0ny

            Re: Collective Delusion.

            >>"One problem might be that English does not really have a word for the absence of religion ("irreligious" is somewhat ambiguous), "

            You're looking for "agnostic / agnosticism". This is taking a position of saying we don't know.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Collective Delusion.

              > You're looking for "agnostic / agnosticism". This is taking a position of saying we don't know.

              No mate. I have already explained that laicisime is not the same as agnosticism.

              And the latter btw, is somewhat orthogonal to the theism debate.

          3. Maty

            Re: Collective Delusion.

            'To put it very simply: an atheist denies the existence of any gods, a monotheist says there is only one, a polytheist goes for one or more'.

            You left out henotheists ...

      3. Someone Else Silver badge
        FAIL

        @ Some AC or another -- Re: Collective Delusion.

        a.k.a atheism

        Fixed it for you.

        Actually, you rather knackered it up some more

    2. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Collective Delusion.

      The problem isn't religion, it's charismatic psychopaths using shared beliefs (be they religious, political or even over which football team is best) to divide populations into "us" and "them" and then using that division as a means of control.

      The worst mass murderers in history (Stalin, Mao, Hitler) weren't exactly noted for their religious beliefs.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Collective Delusion.

        > The worst mass murderers in history (Stalin, Mao, Hitler) weren't exactly noted for their religious beliefs.

        For the sake of balance, let us add Bush + Blair to that list.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Collective Delusion.

        Stalin was a very promising Seminary student, Hitler was an altar boy, I am not aware of any affiliations for Chairman Mao.

        So at least two of three had religious backgrounds and turned out to be mass-murderers. Doesn't say much for the benefits of a religious education does it!

  6. James 51 Silver badge

    It's like the forms you have to fill in when you go to the US i.e. are you planning to commit a crime while you are here. Of course you tick no but if you get caught jay walking then you've lied on that form which can be quite a serious offence. They probably won't go for the reporter unless they want him for something else and can't prove it. Then they'll wheel this out and try to run him down with it.

    1. Vector
      Headmaster

      That would only be a serious of offense if you planned to jay walk...

      1. MiguelC Silver badge

        if I planned?

        I jaywalk everywhere I go, no need to plan it!

        1. Lapun Mankimasta

          Re: if I planned?

          while I walk like an Egyptian ...

      2. Fungus Bob Silver badge

        Re: That would only be a serious of offense if you planned to jay walk...

        Try telling _that_ to a judge.

  7. Christoph Silver badge

    You should only watch nice, safe, authorised, approved videos.

    Like videos of innocent people being massacred wholesale by people on our side. That's perfectly OK.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      During the first Gulf War the BBC, CNN et al broadcast the charred and bloodied remains of hundreds of Iraqi troops, yet when a single out of focus image of a coalition casualty is shown the powers at home erupt in righteous indignation.

      Either both are wrong, or neither are.

      Nick Davies covers this subject well in his book Flat Earth News and so to does Robert Fisk in his book The Great war for Civilisation.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So why has this come about today? - I do not remember such a warning from previous beheadings in iraq/afghanistan.

    Seems a strange coincidence that this is announced today and that this video has someone with an English accent. If it were more than a coincidence, then that would appear that someone is trying to prohibit attempts to identify him.

    1. moiety

      Can't see why a false flag would be necessary with ISIS...they seem to be doing a fairly good job of arousing hate on their own. Mind you; they're getting close to the oil, so maybe we're not hating fast or deeply enough.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I don't think OP is considering a false flag. The problem is that the media is generally painting this as "brown people far away" while ignoring the growing number of British citizens travelling out there to join ISIS. They minimise that aspect of the issue - it's one thing to passively report the occasional british citizen taking part in what amounts to a genocidal war against anyone who isn't a particular brand of muslim, it's another thing entirely for people to actually witness a young man with a British accent casually sawing the head off a journalist.

        Government policy and the media narrative are threatened by this video. People might start to think something other than what they're meant to think.

        1. moiety

          "Government policy and the media narrative are threatened by this video."

          Can't see how. Name a conflict and there's always a few Brits who join up for shits'n'giggles (and others...it's not an exclusively Brit hobby). And if you were joining on the 'terrorist extremist' side then you'd obviously be up for an atrocity or two.

          I haven't seen the full video though (I did have a look just on general principles after that copper arsehole's statement; but can only find sanitised versions. Not totally sure I want to see the full version anyway). Does the original actually show the execution, or does it cut to a body? What I have seen, though, all the reports of the "British accent" are a bit misleading. The person has definitely spent some time in the UK (or some time with people from there); but there is definitely another accent in there if you listen past the Sarf London.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @ moiety

            The narrative being threatened has nothing at all to do with war overseas, per se, but everything to do with the 'harmonious multicultural nation' image in which everyone pulls on the same yoke. The last thing any government in the UK wants is any group within society being demonised on the basis that sarf Londoners hacking heads in Syria today might be doing so in Surbiton tomorrow.

            This is not 'Brits getting scrappy overseas' at all, because it's ideologically driven, and since the London tube bombings the already precarious tightrope politicians have been walking is getting shakier by the minute - something UKIP for example are only too delighted to pick up on, albeit in veiled terms.

            1. moiety

              The impression that I got was that the guy wasn't a sarf Londoner at all...the way he spoke gave me the firm impression that English was very much a second language because of his inflection and mispronunciations. Yes, there was a strong sarf London accent; so he had either spent some time in the UK or he learnt English from those who had. Or is a consumate actor. May even have an English passport, but I'd lay a few quid down on him not being born and raised in the UK.

              And yet the UK papers (and El Reg, sadly) just go with "English accent" and stop there. That, and the PM saying "British Citizen". If your theory is correct, wouldn't they be emphasising the foreign-ness?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Where I live, a lot of the people were born and brought up in the UK, yet very often their accents, while principally east London, still have a good deal of Gujarat, Punjab, Pakistan or West Africa in them, some recognisable to a particular place. English is their first langauge in the main, but it might not be the one they use at home with parents who may still be more comfortable in another language or dialect. Since there's an awful lot of people very much like that outside the home too; in school, work etc, it reinforces it even more, to the point you even hear it in white native born kids too.

                Also some people just never quite lose an accent or the inflections that go with it; sometimes semi conscious choice, sometimes not, while others in a very few years are indistinguishable from natives. A south German woman at my doctors has scarcely a discernable trace of her accent, even in pronunciation, after 20 years, yet she says her husband still sounds like he's only been here a year or two.

                1. moiety

                  Good point well made. And, to complete the thought, the gov couldn't put any empasis on any foreign-ness they noticed because it would make things distinctly more uncomfortable at home.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Exactly. In a sense they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. They've been studiously trying to avoid saying anything at all about nationality, colour, religion or anything else beyond the bare minimum (their version) needed to avoid anyone noticing this studied aversion.

                    I think the political 'embarassed silence/shuffling of feet' thing is a peculiarity of the particularly British political style.

        2. Caesarius

          Re: The problem is

          The problem is that the media is generally painting this as "brown people far away" while ignoring the growing number of British citizens travelling out there to join ISIS...

          Government policy and the media narrative are threatened by this video. People might start to think something other than what they're meant to think.

          Well, that makes sense. But how about looking at it like this:

          "They" must know that prohibiting viewing the video will make people watch it all the more. So that would mean that "they" are not afraid of it. Perhaps it is preferred that people associate evil with extremism, rather than with "brown people far away" or Muslims at home. Or is that too sensible?

          (I've been trying out theories of reverse psychology quite a lot today. I think I'll go and lie down.)

    2. Message From A Self-Destructing Turnip
      Big Brother

      Know this now!

      "So why has this come about today?"

      Because now they know that we know that they know about everything we do on the interweb.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Know this now!

        > Because now they know that we know that they know about everything we do on the interweb.

        Oh, I don't know.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When did you last see your Father?

    Given this video was available on youtube which is a freely publically acessible site, its hard to see how they can issue this threat

    And speaking of issuing threats, is what the met are doing not illegal? As they are essentially saying 'if we think you are guilty of X but we cant prove it & you've seen this video, we will prosecute you for that instead'

    And isnt that threatening the general public? Which would surely constitute terrorism no?

    While we are at it, can we please enlighten the uniformed scum of the earth that while 1984 might be an overused comparison, there is another one could make about their actions which isnt fiction & relates to quite a well known painting by W. F. Yeames titled 'When did you last see your Father?' Which is very much the M.O of said uniformed scum these days, and i doubt very much that many of the UK population would want the return of cromwellian values of 'justice' returned.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: When did you last see your Father?

      The little boy's father was a wanted rebel trying to raise funds to re-start a Civil war that had left the country destitute and thousands of people dead.

      If that scene were replayed today in 'Ghan, Gaza, Iraq or Syria the house would have been flattened by an airstrike with the family still in it.

  10. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    SICKING, DISGUSTING WATCHING!

    WATCHING NOW! 24/7/356!!

    STREAMING TOO WITH LOONY TUNES INTERLUDES!!

    COME AT ME, BROS!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: SICKING, DISGUSTING WATCHING!

      Doubt the brothers Warner will be too interested, unless of course you're pirating those Loony Tunes videos

    2. squigbobble

      Re: SICKING, DISGUSTING WATCHING!

      Full marks for creativity in your attempt to both inspire a reunion of another 90's group I want to forget and living out your sexual fantasy re. them.

  11. Shaha Alam

    anyone else creeped out...

    ...by the vagueness of the "you wont get done for it, unless we want to build a case against you" response?

    isn't it supposed to be clearer when:

    a) a crime has been commited and/or

    b) police action will be taken?

    that's besides how damned stupid it is to label someone a terrorist for simply *viewing* something.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: anyone else creeped out...

      Criminalising someone for what they look at does seem stupid, but it's been done before, even to the extent that doing something can be perfectly legal, but looking at a picture of someone doing it will get you locked up.

      I say with any variant of this sort of thing, it's better to criminalise anyone who assists in the production of such things in any way (including by paying for it) but not penalising those who just look without paying.

      1. Someone Else Silver badge
        Coat

        @ AC -- Re: anyone else creeped out...

        Criminalising someone for what they look at does seem stupid, but it's been done before [...]

        Sure, the Chinese are masters at it.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: anyone else creeped out...

      "build a case"

      as in, when the police called round, you were sewing extra pockets into a waistcoat, your bathroom was being used to store agriculture-size bags of fertilizer and the video was on loop on your laptop.

  12. streaky Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    I'll Bite...

    "Viewing the video could be taken into consideration if any other information comes to light"

    I'd love to know what perfectly legal and above-board method they would use to know in the first place that you'd actually seen it.

    Yeah that's what I thought.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "unless we did something else to arouse suspicion"

    Such as build a UAV Vulture 2...

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: "unless we did something else to arouse suspicion"

      Or, according to one Snowden leak, read the Linux Journal

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So if the BBC show an excerpt from it on the News

    then they will have to arrest five million terrorists?

    1. Lapun Mankimasta

      Re: So if the BBC show an excerpt from it on the News

      Already been done, in Godzone ... TVNZ just made the entire population of New Zealand "terrorists" according to the thin but incredibly dense blue line in the UK.

      1. dogged
        Thumb Up

        Re: So if the BBC show an excerpt from it on the News

        Upvote for "thin but incredibly dense blue line".

        Well done, sir.

  15. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Only blowback actually gets through to their addled brains...

    Hammond: “This is a poison, a cancer, what’s going on in Iraq and Syria, and it risks spreading to other parts of the international community and affecting us all directly. We have policies aimed at deterring people at risk of radicalisation from being radicalised and going out to Iraq and Syria.”

    Woah these chickens coming to roost actually have teeth now, eh?

    Wanted to break the Shia crescent and mix up the Arc of Instability a bit? Listened to Neocons having Israel's best interests at heart? Getting more Sunni than you bargained for? Sucks to be you....

    1. streaky Silver badge

      Re: Only blowback actually gets through to their addled brains...

      "Getting more Sunni than you bargained for?"

      Uhm. We /could/ walk away and leave them to kill each other - so lets go with no. The /actual/ issue is going to be it looks like we're going to have to pick a side and then it will get really ugly - looks like we're leaning towards Iran too on the principle of "stability".

      More shi'ite than sunni's bargained for maybe.

      Anyways, no - literally zero blowback just brainwashed converts who will get JDAMs dropped on them soon enough. Problems nowhere. All the Iraqi's I know think these toff english (and worse white english) kids are a bunch of twats for trying to tell them how to be muslims.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Now I'm going to go and watch the video on purpose. Ejits.

    1. A K Stiles
      Unhappy

      "watch [it] on purpose"

      I'm not, but that's because I don't need to see wanton acts of barbarism rather than because of some thinly veiled, dubious statement about the legality of doing so by some questionably informed representative of the Met. Police.

      Could they please get someone with a clue to actually point out what is and isn't illegal rather than scare-mongering because they'd really rather you didn't do it. All the sides of these issues have got to realise that respect is not best obtained via the use of a stick, either real or metaphorical...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "watch [it] on purpose"

        "Could they please get someone with a clue to actually point out what is and isn't illegal..."

        Anyone with a clue already knows that illegal is "whatever we decide at any arbitrary point we don't like you doing. All that written nonsense is just there so we have something convenient to grab and throw at you whenever we feel like it". Except putting it that way would hardly encourage respect of the law, isn't it...

  17. Arctic fox
    WTF?

    I am not urging some change in the law - I ask one question.

    Who would wish to watch this poor begger meet his end in such a fashion? Not me, at any rate. No arrests needed - just human decency.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: I am not urging some change in the law - I ask one question.

      But you thought those shots of laser guided bombs hitting buildings were cool though?

      Kill one person and it's disgusting evil video, carpet bomb a jungle killing 1000s and it's the background to a pop video.

      1. Arctic fox
        Thumb Down

        Re: But you thought those cool shots of laser..............

        No, you crass idiot I did not. On the contrary, I regard that type of "war porn" as disgusting. In what way does that contradict what I posted....... hmm?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I am not urging some change in the law - I ask one question.

        "But you thought those shots of laser guided bombs hitting buildings were cool though?"

        Or as Mr Waters might have put it:

        Just love those laser-guided bombs,

        They're really great for righting wrongs.

        You hit the target, win the game,

        From bars three thousand miles away.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Manufactured story

    The statement said: "... within the UK may constitute an offence under Terrorism legislation."

    You do understand the meaning of the word "may" don't you?

    Perhaps you could point out where about in that statement they say that anybody watching it will be treated like a terrorist?

    Is this just another manufactured story by the author?

    1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

      Re: Manufactured story

      'may' equals 'if the plods are in a bad mood'. Laws which rely on the whim of the police are very, very bad laws. Good laws are clear and precise and allow everyone to know in advance whether or not something is an offence, and they are enforced consistently, and on all occasions. Even clear definitions of offences are bad law if the police only catch/prosecute offenders 1 time in a thousand (e.g. many traffic offences).

      Current UK Terrorism laws are really not good laws and the sooner they are repealed the better. Exisiting laws are more than adequate - believe it or not, killing people or conspiring to kill people has been illegal for a long, long time. No need for special legislation.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Manufactured story

        The relevant law is the Terrorism Act 2006 Section 2 Dissemination of terrorist publications.

        Subsection 2 is as follows:

        (2) For the purposes of this section a person engages in conduct falling within this subsection if he—

        (a) distributes or circulates a terrorist publication;

        (b) gives, sells or lends such a publication;

        (c) offers such a publication for sale or loan;

        (d) provides a service to others that enables them to obtain, read, listen to or look at such a publication, or to acquire it by means of a gift, sale or loan;

        (e) transmits the contents of such a publication electronically; or

        (f) has such a publication in his possession with a view to its becoming the subject of conduct falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (e).

        "may" equals you wont be breaking the law if you download it to view but you will if you either plan to or do distribute it.

        1. Richard 26

          Re: Manufactured story

          "(d) provides a service to others that enables them to obtain, read, listen to or look at such a publication, or to acquire it by means of a gift, sale or loan"

          That's Google and BT executives in the slammer then.

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Manufactured story

          (g) is an Irish person

          Revision (updated July 2005) - for "Irish" read "Muslim"

      2. Someone Else Silver badge
        Facepalm

        @ Pen-y-gors -- Re: Manufactured story

        You got a downvote?!? Must have been by the Met's Counter Terrorism Command guy assigned to monitor El Reg's forums....

        1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

          Re: @ Pen-y-gors -- Manufactured story

          Damn! Forgot to post as AC via my VPN - better go and hide in the garden shed now...

          1. Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance
            Joke

            Re: @ Pen-y-gors -- Manufactured story

            ---------------------------------------

            Damn! Forgot to post as AC via my VPN - better go and hide in the garden shed now...

            ---------------------------------------

            Mind the fert mix at the back and be careful when you're putting new batteries into the radio if you're going to listen to the cricket. And for god's sake don't light your bloody pipe!

            </joke>

            This was a joke, just in case anyone missed it.

            I know nothing of Pen-y-gors' secret stash of home made expandables. That he keeps next to his secret stash of...

            </another joke>

            I don't even know if he likes cricket. Or smokes a pipe. Or if he might even be a she. That likes cricket. And smokes a pipe. Quite a thought though.

            NEWSFLASH!

            This is the BBC news. A shed was blown 60 feet into the air this evening and landed in a nearby garden 4 doors down. Killing the cat, but narrowly missing the family dog. The fate of the hamsters is unknown at this time. The floor of the shed was still intact and in place, having been securely and heavily nailed down by its owner, whose remains were still partly visible at the site of the tragedy. One hand was found with a Sherlock Holmes Smooth Original Briar Pipe still attached, and an earlobe attached to a small transistor radio, which also appeared to have what was left of the victims fingers, wedged half way into the battery compartment.

            A police spokesman said, he believed the victim, or rather perpetrator was mixing a home made bomb for deployment at an undisclosed location, when, for reasons probably only known to the perpetrator himself, he decided to get high on his own supply of a shed mixed cocktail of crack, heroin and cocaine.

            'He simply pushed the boat out too far, and obviously got his wires crossed', said another spokesperson.

            'In all my thirty years of policing, this has been one of the most gruesome crime scenes I have had to attend', said a third. 'A wife has lost a husband, and a family has lost a cat. A garden has lost a shed. Let this be a warning to others, foolish enough to try something as dangerous as this'.

            His wife said 'I never even knew he smoked', but I knew he was up to _something_ out there all the time.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Manufactured story

      While agreeing with you has no one really read and understood what was being said. An isolated viewing of a crap video by some demented disciple of the devil is more likely to produce an emetic effect that anything else.

      However, a pattern that see you viewing several such video nasties, buying a few pounds of fertiliser suitable for bomb making watching a few how to blow things up videos, and sundry acts of random stupidity etc. are very likely to see you being investigated.

      Usually PCs are checked because something else turns up, perhaps a copy of the receipt from fertiliser bombs are us or 'burst the Semtex way'? Then the PC is looked at and a few other juicy things suggest a pattern.

      Putting it the other way, an order for several tons of (a suitable fertiliser for dual use), some diesel, a large agricultural spreader, several large packets of seeds, for delivery to 300 acre farm together with a tractor or two, might, just might produce a different reaction.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Manufactured story

        "However, a pattern that see you viewing several such video nasties,"

        Depends upon the exact definition of "video nasty". A while back I looked up earthquake videos. Watched a few of those (and decided being in an earthquake would freak the hell out of me). This led on to TV bloopers, with somehow led on to an apartment block (Philippines?) falling over, which lead on to other building fails, and then a few spectacularly dumb crashes, the epitome of which must have been a B52 doing what looked to be a barrel roll without understanding that the wings were quite a bit longer than the space between the cockpit and the ground. To cap it off, I watched the Russian Tsar bomb. <big><big><big><big>Boom.</big></big></big></big>

        Wasting time on mindless stuff is what happened. Sick sad curiosity, mostly. But I reckon a disgruntled cop with an issue could make a lot out of: collapsing buildings, crashes, plane crashes, nuclear-frikkin-weapons. You see I'm going with this?

      2. bigtimehustler

        Re: Manufactured story

        So your saying the perfect cover for a terrorist plot is actually to just rent out a farm holding and they are in the clear....

    4. veti Silver badge

      Re: Manufactured story

      "May" implies that the law is so vaguely written that it's impossible to tell, in advance, whether a given action will break it or not.

      Which, in turn, implies that the police give themselves carte blanche to arrest whoever the hell they like for whatever takes their fancy, because you never know until you try.

      Now, I don't go so far as to think that the British plod actually have that mindset. They don't see themselves as an entirely superior caste with ultimate, uncheckable power over the citizenry, unlike the police in certain other states I could mention. But that's the road they're on, and on present form they'll get there far sooner than I'd like.

    5. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Manufactured story

      Your tinfoil hat's slipping, AC. You seem to have confused El Reg with the Guardian.

      No Register journalist manufactures stories. If they were (bearing in mind we have a subs' desk precisely to interrogate and corroborate everything we publish - there's no unverified/subless publishing here), they would cease to be a Register journalist in short order. Easy as that.

      Please feel free to continue posting your conspiracy theories on a website whose URL doesn't end in theregister.co.uk.

  19. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    Prevention of Terrorism

    Yet another example of why UK anti-terrorism legislation is a complete pile of badly-drafted, totalitarian, ineffective crap.

    1. Will Godfrey Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Prevention of Terrorism

      I disagree. It is very effective crap, scaring the pants off everyone who is 'normal' (whatever that means) while doing nothing to impair the criminal industry.

      P.S.

      .. of which the Met is arguably part.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Will Godfrey Re: Prevention of Terrorism

        Sorry Prevention of Terrorism does nothing to worry me, however, I do agree that the wild hate mongers will not be deterred by anything, you or I or all the King's horses and all the King's men can do.

        I suspect that there is not a lot of understanding of how laws generally try to work.

        Many things are illegal to try to discourage most of us from murder, arson, theft, affray, bomb making, etc. Some people are deterred, some are not, many of those who are not deterred can be and are then prosecuted - though perhaps not enough of the murderers are locked away for long enough.

        Interestingly pubs blowing up, trains blowing up, buses blowing up worried me far more when I was working in London than all the laws on the statute book.

        I do admit that some of Blair's stellar legal efforts have caused me far more aggravation than anything else.

  20. a53

    This reminds me

    of the plod who decided we couldn't take photographs of them (plods).

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    extreme porn

    Does this also come under the aegis of the extreme porn law? Certainly it's an act which threatens a person's life. I guess it depends on the individual if they regard the 'snuffing' as a turn-on which it needs to be regarded as 'pornographic'

  22. Someone Else Silver badge
    WTF?

    "Hello? Metro Police?"

    "Hi. I have this shark that I want you to jump...."

    Every once and a while, living on this side of the pond has its advantages....

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Watching it is a crime? Reuploading is distribution? Get real.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=888_1408487001

    Trigger warning: may offend British authorities

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Though I have no idea...

    Why would anyone even wish to watch it? Really, why?

    1. Eltonga
      Trollface

      Re: Though I have no idea...

      Free gore?

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I would think that it should be compulsory viewing for all our politicians and members of the left liberal intelligentsia to show what they have lead the country towards.

    1. Triggerfish

      @Ivan 4

      I would argue that the right wingers who think we should go over and bomb the wogs till they behave probably haven't helped the situation either.

    2. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Which country? The "left liberal intelligentsia" haven't been in a position of real power in the UK since the 1970s, and they've never run the US (the Democrats are far from being either left or liberal)

  26. This post has been deleted by its author

  27. David 66

    a) Being told I can't watch it by the police is pathetic and erodes the respect I have for the boys n girls in blue. The crime is the murder, not the insensitive sharing of a video of the murder.

    b) I will not watch a video of someone being tortured/killed. For me, it's a respect thing. By watching it, I'm collaborating in the dehumanisation of the victim and fulfilling the murderers' wishes. If that's hard to get your head round, say it's a video of someone you know being raped. How could you watch that? How could you share it?

    Imho, the only valid/moral reason to submit to watching this grotesque stuff is if you're in the business of taking names and doling out smackdown justice.

    1. Lapun Mankimasta

      boys n girls in blue

      Ah, you must remember that it's not only a thin blue line, it's also incredibly dense. Its density is much, much greater than that of a neutron star.

  28. Chris G Silver badge

    Ask a policeman

    Is almost anything against the law? and he will almost certainly reply in the affirmative.

    Policemen are not actually trained that much in what the law is, they are the executive arm of the justice system, that's why they have Police Solicitors and the DPP who (hopefully) do know what is illegal.

    I imagine it must be quite embarrassing for trained lawyers when they hear cops spout some of the rubbish they come out with

    1. chris lively

      Re: Ask a policeman

      I'm not sure I would call cops the "executive arm" of the justice system. They are the enforcers. If it looks like a crime is going on then it's their job to arrest (and/or shoot [depending on your country of residence]) everyone involved. Then they let the prosecutors (or whatever you call them) deal with it.

      1. Chris G Silver badge

        Re: Ask a policeman

        Word web ; Executive: Having the function of carrying out plans or orders, e.g. Executive Branch etc They 'execute' orders and instructions from the Home Office and courts etc

        1. heyrick Silver badge

          Re: Ask a policeman

          "They 'execute' orders and instructions from the Home Office and courts etc"

          And once in a while take the "execute" part a little too literally.

        2. peter_dtm
          Flame

          Re: Ask a policeman

          no no no no

          the Home Office (despite lunny left governments [blue & red] trying) MAY NOT issue instructions to any Police Constable or Police Force.

          The Home Secretary MAY issue GUIDENCE which is non binding.

          The Constables ( a CROWN appointment; not a governement appointment) are responsible (have a legal duty as sworn Constables ) for KEEPING THE PEACE.

          As Sir John Peel observerd; every arrest is a FAILURE of the Police. (Look up the meaning of the verb 'to police' as used by the Royal Navy for a better understanding of why this is so)

          AND overerly prescriptive laws are BAD laws not good laws in this COMMON law soverign nation. Laws are subject to the 'reasonable man' test - something control freaks (Blairs; governments; etc) hate with a passion; which is why so many of their laws are so bad; they try to prevent Common Law reasonable man tests.

          COMMON law is what seperates the civilised Anglosphere from the madness of Code Napolean aka Eutopean Law.

          Common law countries are supposed to rely on JURIES being GUIDED by Judges in interpreting the law in respect of the CIRCUMSTANCES under which the accused MAY have broken the law. They are also supposed to consider the INTENT of Parliment in passing said laws as modified by case law and the changing times.

          But never mind; let's all vanish down the horrible Code Napolean law you find in the EU ( as rammed into UK law bu the EU) and outside Commonwealth/Anglosphere countries. Freedom IN the law; not continental tyrany UNDER the law.

          God Save King George and death to Napolean and all tyrants !

    2. GotThumbs
      WTF?

      Re: Ask a policeman

      "Policemen are not actually trained that much in what the law is"

      LOL. Your spouting total B. S.

      What a twit you must be.

  29. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  30. Eugene Goodrich

    Terrorgister.co.uk...

    I knew it was just a matter of time before El Reg's editorial board got radicalized. (I think we can all agree Lester Haines had the shortest way to go.)

  31. Fink-Nottle

    A Policeman's Lot

    When a writer's not engaged in his employment

    Or maturing journalistic little plans

    His capacity for innocent enjoyment

    Is just as great as any honest man

  32. Skyraker

    who the fuck would want to watch it anyway?

    I couldnt watch this.. ever.

    Once you watch it , you cant unwatch it.

    Shit like this would follow me around in my head for a fucking eternity... fuck that.

    1. Oz
      Black Helicopters

      Re: who the fuck would want to watch it anyway?

      I will confess that I have watched a beheading video before - it was about ten years ago, and I had the link emailed to me. I felt physically sick for 3 days and could barely sleep because I was just seeing it in my mind all the time. I can still visualise it clearly now, and really wish I could "unwatch" it. It was very, very unpleasant to say the least. If you are thinking of going hunting for it then don't - really.

      1. Gordon861

        Re: who the fuck would want to watch it anyway?

        I was shown one a while back. Some drunk on a night bus was showing videos on his phone (pre-smartphones) and pretty much just shoved it in my face. It's not something you can unwatch.

        It was lowres pixely, but not something I would ever want to see again, or think about if possible.

  33. Sirius Lee

    Well done David Allen Green

    I can imagine that the job of Counter Terrorism is a tough one. Trying to work out who might be a future terrorist must be a thankless and error prone task requiring extensive and difficult intelligence work. However if the statement attributed to the Met command responsible is accurate, there seems little excuse for such careless use of words, such a cavalier attitude to, well, the law. The words, as I have read them, are those of someone who would appreciate a police state. After all, the job would be so much easier in such an environment.

    So well done David Allen Green for challenging the Met.

  34. Keir Snelling

    So, at least we now know that it's not just the lower ranks that can invent laws as they please (Put the camera down, it's illegal to photograph police officers....), the senior ranks are quite happy to invent new crimes too. One might even go as far as to describe it as institutionalised.

  35. Jim 59

    Trollin'

    Lol. The Register has trolled its own commentards into a Dave Spart thermonuclear meltdown.

  36. g e

    So. Pronography.

    Does that mean if I watch porn I'm a pornographer? Where's my Aston Martin and tacky Pools winner's mansion then? If I watch BBC news, perhaps I'm George Alagiah or a foreign correspondent.

    I'm off to watch Alien to see if I turn out to be Ridley Scott...

  37. Truth4u

    Enough

    Why is it a crime to watch any crime on video? Unless the government is scared a beheading video will make a life of crime look like a tempting alternative to my 9 to 5????

    And I LOL at the government telling these guys not to go. I have a different idea, a different and BETTER idea, we should offer free tea and cake to all violent extremists at the town hall at noon. Then lock them in and burn it down.

    1. bigtimehustler

      Re: Enough

      Yes indeed, I think a better solution is to let them all go but then never let them return!

    2. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Enough

      Or perhaps we could just stop stop supporting brutal dictators (sorry, kings) in some parts of the Muslim, bombing other parts any time we feel like it, or assisting the illegal occupation of Arab land.

  38. Flyberius

    You're not a terrorist or a revolutionary. Your just making a buck pandering to a mob.

    Give me your thumbs! \/ DOWN \/

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If we're all labelled terrorists now, we don't need terrorism laws to "protect" us

    Simples.

  40. Robinson

    Perhaps not for watching it.

    If not arrested for watching it, should certainly be sectioned for wanting to. I imagine they're absolutely revolting to watch.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019