Would using the benefits system as a weapon,good way to beat extremists ?

[LeMaquis]

The OP is so confused I couldn't start to answer. For a start off it doesn't say how an extremist is defined and by whom. Without that I can't see how the further questions can be answered. Extremists have to be judged by their actions. If the OP is about violent extremists then they'd end up in prison so benefits wouldn't come into it. The recent nutter in Norway ran his own farm. At least 2 of the July 7th suicide bombers worked. So no JSA there. In any case if people have serious concerns about something money isn't going to dilute it. Osama Bin Laden wasn't short of a bob or two. The Baader Meinhofs were nice middle-class kiddies. Would-be terrorists can be funded from elsewhere. Some of them are called sleepers and get jobs somewhere they wait for years before acting. Some people call Sinn Fein MPs extremists but they don't take their seats and therefore don't draw a wage. But they don't change their views. To argue that extremism is all about benefits is woefully naive.

[Tony Erikson]

The OP is so confused I couldn't start to answer. For a start off it doesn't say how an extremist is defined and by whom. Without that I can't see how the further questions can be answered. Extremists have to be judged by their actions. If the OP is about violent extremists then they'd end up in prison so benefits wouldn't come into it. The recent nutter in Norway ran his own farm. At least 2 of the July 7th suicide bombers worked. So no JSA there. In any case if people have serious concerns about something money isn't going to dilute it. Osama Bin Laden wasn't short of a bob or two. The Baader Meinhofs were nice middle-class kiddies. Would-be terrorists can be funded from elsewhere. Some of them are called sleepers and get jobs somewhere they wait for years before acting. Some people call Sinn Fein MPs extremists but they don't take their seats and therefore don't draw a wage. But they don't change their views. To argue that extremism is all about benefits is woefully naive.

 

What about extreme porn? That's one extreme few white males seem to complain about.

[andygardener]

But they don't. By their very definition, human rights are those rights which cannot be removed from you no matter what your behaviour, simply because you are a human being.

 

No, they aren't.

 

They are an articifial geographically defined construct, which do not confer universal human rights in any way.

 

Consider-

 

A) An islamic extremist who has planned bombings in north africa and flees to Britain and claims asylum - he has "human rights" according to HMG because of his current GPS location, he gets free lawyers free housing and basically free everything, wrapped up in cotton wool when he should be shipped back immediately to face his punishment,

 

B) A young afghan lad who sees his father and mother killed in a US bombing raid, left alone he joins the taliban in his country and is caught by a British Army patrol in a ditch and in a firefight immediately shot through the face by a bullet fired by a British soldier.

 

If A got shot in the face by an agent of the government we'd be suing ourselves from here till eternity, B getting shot in the face is day to day practice.

 

Don't tell me human rights mean anything, they are an industry for greedy lawyers and an impediment to defending Britain. I'd much rather we leave foreigners alone in their countries until and unless they come to our country with malice and then i'd much appriecate "human rights" crap being removed so the lads who are risking their lives in the 'stan can slot the buggers with impunity if they turn up here.

[Longcol]

This would be so easy to implement, regardless of which area of the political spectrum they come from. It seems these men have far too much energy, far too much spending money (in benefits payments) and of course far too much time.

 

So how easy would it be to combat the extremists using their own benefits as the main weapon? Lets look at this.

 

Lets say the extremist was on Jobseekers allowance, would it not be an obvious solution for “jobcentre plus” to find these people a job, a job that involved long shifts and so would reduce the amount of spare time these people had. Would it not also channel the excess energy these men have into something more worthwhile?

 

It seems such an obvious solution – get these people a job. Of course, if these people refused to take the job they would of course no longer be entitled to benefits and so getting any job would be their utmost concern, rather than preaching hatred.

 

Of course the “too much money” problem would also be solved, our would be extremist would find that the minimum wage x 48 hours each week (less taxes) would leave him far worse off than he would be if he stayed on benefits. This would then pose another problem for the extremist to worry about – ie, paying the bills, paying the rent, food on the table and of course the cost of getting to work. If the extremist had these problems to contend with, would this not focus the mind in dealing with everyday tasks, as opposed to spreading venom into the community?

 

The time factor, there is nothing worse than work for getting in the way of your interests, most of us would enjoy additional free time to persue the things that interest us

 

Using benefits as the weapon, the best way to beat extremism?

 

How would the "extremist" be identified in the first place? Do they have it tattooed on their forehead?