Extremism to be hit by spending cuts.

Or something.

The government is to publish an updated strategy for tackling extremism and terrorism, on Tuesday afternoon.

Good-oh, does it involve us keep our noses out of other people's business? I'm guessing not because God knows their nose spends enough time in my business.

So how do we tackle extremism?

recommendations expected include monitoring people convicted of terrorism offences on their release

Oh, do you think? We've got all this wonderful legislation to stop all of us in the streets and spy on us, just in case we wake up one morning and discover we've developed an interest in peroxide, rusty nails and trains, and yet, you haven't even had the nouse to keep an eye on the people who demonstrably do have such an interest? Isn't this all a bit arse about face? Is it not common sense to keep tabs on those who are active rather than wasting time suspecting all of us?

a renewed focus on the use of the internet, as the government considers a "national blocking list" of violent and unlawful websites.

Hmmm, that rings a warning bell, there's huge scope for mission drift there, it all sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? I'm betting all the sites declared unlawful will be nodded through with the minimum of oversight. EDF? BNP? Any others?

A final draft of the new document, to be published in Parliament on Tuesday, was reportedly seen by the Times.

It says it was "possible" Prevent funding had gone to extremist groups promoting hardline beliefs.

Hang on a moment, you mean to say that some of the money earmarked to combat extremism has been handed to the extremists? Oh, oh, that's brilliant. I look forward to submitting that as evidence the next time some grey little drone solemnly informs me that only the State can do X, Y or Z.

On Monday, Mrs May accused universities of complacency in tackling Islamist extremism - a charge denied by the vice chancellors' body, Universities UK.

She told the Daily Telegraph: "I don't think they have been sufficiently willing to recognise what can be happening on their campuses and the radicalisation that can take place. I think there is more that universities can do."

Absolutely the universities should be held to account, it is all their fault. Do you remember when the paramilitary arm of the University of Central Lancashire went into Algeria, blowing things up left, right and centre?

I'm not one to bang the anti-cuts drum, but you scale back university funding and make the students pay thousands of pounds to attend. Fair enough, but that changes the landscape, that puts the universities into direct market place competition. Are you going to spend the better part of £10k to a university only for the university to start monitoring who you are talking to, where and what about? That's business suicide.

But the new document is expected to say the government will ensure that no more cash will be given "to organisations that hold extremist views or support terrorist-related activity of any kind".

But this is revolutionary! One of the best ways to hamstring extremist groups is to starve them of funds, I'm so glad that it is as easy as stopping giving them the money from my taxes.

Previously, Mrs May has said that, as a result of the strategy's review of government support, about 20 of the organisations that received funding over the past three years would have their cash withdrawn.


According to the Times, one reason for the failings of the current policy was a lack of scrutiny of the programme to test whether money was going to legitimate groups and bringing benefits.

Because this is what happens when you hand out cash to ridiculous special interest groups, be they the Muslim Council of Britain (I've never seen an election for them, they're not self appointed, by any chance, are they?), the NSPCC or the Dunfermline Dramatic Society for Amputee Transgender Somalis. Realistically, the benefits for society are far outweighed by the cold, hard cash poured into them, and the voice of the rest of society is drowned out by the high pitched whine given by the addicts when the flow of the fiscal narcotic is stemmed.

Speaking of special interest groups:

But Azad Ali, chairman of the Muslim Safety Forum. . .

Who? The Muslim Safety Forum? What? Is this to do with making sure that hard hats are halal?

. . . and an advisor to the previous government on extremism, said the government should not attack ideologies.

You're kidding yourself mate, that's all governments do. Attacking ideologies is what governments do best, and I'm wondering how long it is until anyone who holds an opinion on any subject that is contrary to that of government is labelled as an extremist.

You've been used, buddy. Stings, doesn't it?

You can spend as much money as you like combating terrorism and extremists, but until such time as we really want to tackle the cause nothing will change. The cause is not swivel eyed preachers and websites with shouty music and footage of half arsed training camps. The cause is what makes these people susceptible to the rantings of these nutters in the first place, I'm afraid we have to look at our actions abroad, both militarily - did we really need to go into Iraq? Was there no history before 9/11? Who funded the nutters that took over Afghanistan? We did, because of our fears over the USSR. Who occupied Iran and propped up the hated and authoritarian Mohammad Reza Pahlavi? - and diplomatically - look at our support or silence over a number of regimes across the world, keeping people under the thumb, voiceless and destitute.

Is it any wonder there's a parade of angry, desperate and hopeless people? You'll always get religious nutters, the West has their fair share, but it might be an idea to stop pushing people towards them. 

Pass the matches.

Sky News are reporting that Pastor Terry Jones (and I keep expecting this to be a stunt to announce the reformation of the Python boys) from the seemingly inappropriately named 'Dove World Outreach Center' has given the New York imams a two hour deadline to talk to him about the building of something that isn't a mosque on some land that isn't quite Ground Zero or he'll. . .

Well, he doesn't say. But the threat is clear.

It reminds me of the episode of the Young Ones when they wake up in the morning to find a nuclear bomb in the kitchen, and Rik threatens to appropriate it if Thatcher doesn't do 'something', for 'the kids'.

Of course the wild eyed wavy arm brigade across the Muslim world have shown that they don't like the idea of their book being burned in a disrespectful way, by burning the American flag and other stuff in a disrespectful way. It's kinda like Argentina playing Germany, you want both sides to lose.

Anyhow, he's an idiot. Indeed he's a nutter so nutty that even Westboro Baptist Church would probably look at him and say 'this guy's nuts!'

You want your book burning Mr. Jones? Fine, then burn away old chap, burn away. But if I were the Commissioner of Gainesville Police Department or the Sherriff of Alachua County, then I would be pointing out to him that if some odd looking dark skinned chaps with entertaining beards turned up with an impressive selection of automatic weaponry, then I probably wouldn't be too bothered about finding out what they were up to, nor would I be responding to any panicked phone calls from the Dove World Outreach Center with any sense of urgency.

The One That Does Not Own Himself. . .

A momentary departure from the World Cup, which, despite the bloody awful football we’ve served up, is taking a large amount of my time up. Back to real life for a moment.

We’re still in that strange sort of cusp period, trying to figure out how much of what this government says it will do, it will actually do, how much of it is good intention but not possible on closer inspection, how much of it is lies and how much of it they’re not going to mention at all because some of the toys Labour had fashioned are just too exciting and fun to put back into the box.

One thing is for sure, even under this new regime, you do not belong to you. You may have a bigger share in self-ownership than under Labour, but at the end of the day, you do not get the final say in anything.

Two stories that I’ve seen in a most perfunctory recce over the news sites illustrate this perfectly. Firstly there are the CCTV cameras in Birmingham, commented upon recently by Old Holborn. Well, not surprisingly, the predominantly Muslim population in the area of Birmingham were these cameras where installed are significantly unchuffed at being spied upon 24/7 just because they have a penchant for beards and like to prepare their meat in a different fashion.

CCTV cameras are a blunt instruments used to cow the whole area. Terrorists couldn’t give a toss about them. It will make no difference to their plans at all, they’ll simply re-locate. But for the rest of the population, the inference is clear. ‘For your own safety, you are not to be trusted. You are to be measured and recorded and monitored.’

This is how diversity is valued, by telling one section of the population they are suspected terrorists. Oh, don’t worry, Muslims, it isn’t just you, the Irish have been there, as have the South Africans over here during the apartheid regime. We’ll all have a go on this particular fun fair ride before the park closes. Anyhow, the community not surprisingly has decided that this is not what they want and have kicked up a stink. Good. Say what you like about the Muslims, they may be women oppressors, mentalists, and all other things, but they still have a community, in its proper sense, not in some Nicola Murray DOSAC sense. Community has power, that is why successive governments try to break them up.

Sooooo. . .

Bags are to be put over scores of surveillance cameras in parts of Birmingham with large Muslim populations, after local objections.

A small victory, but a victory nevertheless. Except. . .

The cameras will not be used until consultation has been carried out.

Sorry? Consultation with whom? I thought the local community had made their feelings on this matter quite clear. What it should have said was this: ‘The cameras will not be used until everyone’s had a little while to calm down and had it explained to them that unless they shut up that new medical centre will be refused planning permission, or that community centre will have its funding withdrawn, or the council will embark on a full on audit of small businesses adherence to trading laws etc, etc. At which point the cameras will be used anyway.’

No reasonable debate or reversal of decision can be made. Whatever the circumstances. You’ve done nothing wrong, but you must still be punished. Pour encourager les autres.

I’m being cynical. Of course this will absolutely stop terrorism. Just as this sort of thing will stop gangs of feral youth shooting each other (and innocent bystanders) into shreds.

A grandmother has been jailed for five years for possessing a "family heirloom" World War II pistol.

But of course. I can now sleep safely at night because an old WWII pistol, which has been sat quietly in an old shoe box in the bottom of a drawer and probably hasn’t been in a serviceable condition for twenty five years, is no longer a threat. Phew. Thank God for that.

This sort of thing is good, that woman could have struck fear into the hearts of the hard working school leavers, about to embark on a life long career of wearing trousers with the waistband around their knees, talking in some bizarre patois and intimidating old ladies on their way to the shop to buy twenty Lambert and Butler and a lotto ticket.

Thank God there are no guns on our streets. And thank God there are no guns sat quietly in an old shoe box in the bottom of a drawer that probably haven’t been in a serviceable condition for twenty five years.

Everything is OK. Just do as I say, don’t ask questions, don’t make a fuss, take your punishment like a man, it’s for your own good.