ISIS are not a threat to the United Kingdom, bad government is

How many people have Islamic State murdered in the UK in set piece terrorist atrocities? None. Lets look at a few other statistics.

The last major terrorist attack in the UK by terrorists claiming to be Islamic fundamentalists was the  7/7 bombings in 2005. Since then, more people have been killed by dogs in the UK (16). That group were not ISIS relaetd as ISIS didn't exist then.

No one is proposing a "war on dogs" as they are more lethal than UK based Jihadi terrorists. There are however a few similarities between these killer dogs and the Jihadi's. The main one is that there are millions of lovely dogs that will never kill anyone but who get a bad name from a few, generally who have very stupid owners. My personal view is that it is bad dog owners rather than the dogs which should get the bad press.

Dogs have killed more UK citizens than ISIS

To me there is a huge similarity with ISIS. Just as bad owners create the small number of dangerous dogs, suicidal Jihadists are the product of several factors. The chief one is an extremely hard line interpretation of the Koran by Wahibbi clerics in Saudi Arabia. We blanche at the atrocities perpetrated in Syria in ISIS controlled land, but exactly the same sort of thing happens in Saudi Arabia and is sanctioned by the Saudi government, a supposed ally. On Friday the Guardian reported that a Saudi court had sentenced a poet to death for the crime of renouncing Islam. The wider picture is equally shocking, Amnesty International reports that 102 people were put to death by the Saudi government between January and June 2012 and almost half of executions in 2014 and until June 2015 are for non-lethal crimes. Beheadings are the most common execution method in Saudi Arabia, but some executions also carried out by firing squad. Many Public executions typically take place in the public square of a town or city. Whilst ISIS clearly are operating such practices on a larger scale, this is partly because the local population has until recently been of a lot more secular nature. The funding and support for groups such as ISIS is based in Saudi Arabia and the religious authorities would be in firm agreement with the interpretation of Sharia Law implemented by ISIS. When the US authorities were battling with gangsters in the 1930's they found that the way to stop their activities was to "follow the money". If you follow the money for ISIS, the trail ends in the bank accounts of wealthy and seemingly respectible Saudi backers. If ISIS really was a threat to our way of life, then surely this is the first place we'd seek to launch our war on terror. There would be no ISIS without money.

Daleks have killed as many people in UK as ISIS

Just how deadly are these Jihadi terrorists? The sad truth is that a few nutcases running around with bombs and guns does have the ability to cause mayhem and kill lots of people. But when yyou look at it, the ones in Paris were and incredibly stupid bunch. I was talking to a friend who is a police officer involved with counter terrorist activities. He told me a fact that, whilst rather macabre, I found quite amusing and reassuring. The bombers at Stade de France only managed to kill themselves and one passer by. Do you know why? Well it seems these terrorist masterminds had not actually bothered to get tickets for the game. They also turned up late, after the crowds had entered the stadium. What greater act of futility and stupidity could there be? Even by their own appalling standards, they were not martyrs, they were simply stupid men committing an act of mass suicide for no purpose whatsoever. If the level of people we have to deal with is so stupid that they can't figure out what time a football match starts and that you need tickets to get in, do you really believe that such people have the wherewithall to topple our democratic society? Does an ideology that has been less successful at killing people since 2005 than bad dog owners really threaten the people of the UK with anything more than isolated and random acts of carnage? Our security forces and Police have kept them at bay for ten years. They deserve massive credit for this although clearly we cannot let our guard down and let ourselves relax. But however you look at it, ISIS are not a threat to our way of life and they will never be anything more than capable of killing a few innocent people in a few public places in the UK. That is the sum total of their powers. There are however far greater threats to the population, that it seems we completely ignore.

 In 2013 1,713 people were killed on the roads (latest govt figures available). That sounds quite a lot doesn't it? But in actual fact this is a tiny number compared to the 9,500 who die in London alone from poor air quality. That sounds like quite a lot, but again is dwarfed by the 40,000 people a year killed in the UK by cold. Sounds quite a lot? What about the 100,000 a year killed by smoking?

All of these figures dwarf anything that a few nutters with Kalashnikovs and bomb vests could achieve. The appalling fact is that all of these figures are totally avoidable. With modern technology, it would be quite straightforward to pass legilsation that compells manufacturers to build anti collision techology into all cars and also that enforces speed limits, restricting cars to the speed limit for the road. I've no idea if it's true or company propoganda, but I've read reports that state that 90% of accidents could be prevented by technology.  It seems absurd that we pay billions to prevent terror attacks, but the government won't compel car firms to include technology that would save over 1,000 lives a year. If it was as simple as protecting unsafe drivers from themselves, I suppose it could be argued as a civil liberties issue, but it isn't. It is other road users, cyclists and pedestrians that suffer. It is not just the deaths. There are all of the people who require hospital treatment and long term life changing injuries. Reports list this as half a billion pounds a year for the 0-15 year old age group. When George Osborne talks about cuts in funding, why doesn't he ever consider cutting the cause of the costs? I can't see any reason why the UK doesn't lead the way, cut the death toll and save billions. It is a win, wi win scenario. 

Then there is poor air quality. In London this is caused by pollution from cars, lorries and buses. Again the technology exists that can prevent this. The problem has been known about for years. It is as simple as compelling manufacturers to fit it on all vehicles and after a suitable period banning non compliant vehicles fro town centres and pollution hotspots. Again there are costs involved for motorists, but they have no earthly right to poison the rest of the population. It is scandalous that 9,500 people a year die from completely preventable causes. Reports list the cost  to the UK economy of air pollution as £54 billion. This figure would presumably fix George Osbornes budget defecit for once and all. It would allow us to keep our libraries, invest in the Police we need to stop the few lone wolf nutters and we'd all be healthier. It really isn't rocket science, is it?

Then there are the 40,000 people a year killed by the cold. Unlike the first two categories, this doesn't need new technology and infrastructure investments to fix. This simply needs compassion. People freeze to death because they can't afford to keep warm. No one in a developed country should ever freeze to death. What many people don't realise is that the issue puts a huge strain on the NHS budget. AgeUK estimate that the cost to the NHS is £1.36 billion

Age UK’s new estimate of the cost of cold homes to the NHS is £1.36 billion.There will also be further avoidable costs to social care services and to informal carers. At a time when the Government is looking to the NHS to make efficiency savings, taking further action to enable older people to protect their health in winter will also bring savings for the public purse.

Such a death toll cannot be justified on any level. It is quite simple, anyone who has issues paying their energy bills should be given whatever assistance they need to fix the problem. Of course there will be costs associated with this, but I for one would rather pay more for electricity or more in tax than see anyone freeze to death. If we can afford billions to keep the population safe from a few nutcases, we can most certainly afford to keep our elderly citizens safe from the cold.

The last of the things which cause preventable deaths is smoking. It kills over 50 times more people than car accidents. The cost to the NHS is huge. But this is a very complicated issue. The vast majority of people who will injure themselves or die because they smoke are adults who have made the choice to smoke. We live in a free society and I don't believe we should be telling adults how we should live our lives. What worries me though is the fact that despite all of the health risks, smoking is still viewed as a cool thing to do by teenagers. How do we change this perception? I haven't got a clue. Tobacco brings in huge sums of money for the treasury, which is why I suspect that the government has no real interest in dealing with this toll. If cigarettes were made illegal, then people would still smoke, but the government would simply lose tax revenue, which is a lose/lose. It would probably seem even more subversive and cool for the teenagers of the world. A friend of mine had a novel solution to the problem, which I have no idea whether it is a good idea or not. He suggested that over 65's should pay less tobacco duty and pubs and clubs should have smoking areas reserved for over 65's. This would put more money in the pockets of pensioners and presumably by this age, it is one of the few pleasures in life. If we had a few sitcoms set in old folks homes, where the residents were happily puffing away and reminiscing about the good old days of steam trains and national service, then would the younger generation still think smoking was a cool thing to do. I spoke to a cancer doctor recently (I've spoken to a few). He joked that having seen geriatric wards and cancer wards he knew which he'd prefer, which is why he smoked.

What do you think are the main threats to the UK? As far as I am concerned it is not ISIS. If you look at it rationally, the bloke who sells you a packet of fags is more likely to kill you than ISIS. The bloke driving a diesel car is more likely to kill you than ISIS. George Osborne with his energy policies is more likely to kill you than ISIS. However you look at it, if you are sane, rational and intelligent, ISIS are not a threat to the ongoing national security of the UK. Sadly for us all, the same cannot be said about bad, unenlightened and stupid government.

15 years into the "war on terror" we still have no plan

It is coming up to 15 years since George Bush declared a "war on terror". In light of Fridays Paris attacks, the only conclusion a sane, rational person can conclude is that we are losing the war. How many billions have been spent? How many people have died? Despite all of this, we are further than ever from getting to grips with the issue. Bush said his aim was to destroy the terrorist group Al Qaida. It is perhaps strange to think that this has almost been accomplished. Sadly this has been achieved by the creation an even more gruesome group called IS (or is that ISIL or IS?).

Whatever you may or may not think of any of these terrorist groups, there is one undeniable fact. We are no nearer to getting to grip with the threat that these groups pose. When billions have been spent over such a long period surely the time has come to ask why we are failing so miserably. The answer is plain for all to see. It is impossible to deal with anything without some sort of plan. We don't have one. As someone who is living with cancer, a simple analogy is available. I have a small tumour in my prostate. I have the choice between dealing with this whilst it is small or waiting until it grows and invades the rest of my body. Ever since I discovered the problem, I've changed my lifestyle and tried to remove as many of the factors which promote cancer from my life as possible. I am also about to embark on treatment. In short I have a plan.

The only plan our governments seem to have is to attack the symptoms. The Drone strike on Jihadi John is perhaps the latest example. The guy was clearly a deranged sadistic serial killer. The US military "vapourised" him in a drone strike. It has been very good for the newspapers. I daresay they've sold a few extra copies, but think about it for a second. Does it really make any difference at all? If Jihadi John was a sick nutcase serial killer, luring people to his flat to film himself beheading them, killing him would have solved the problem. But he isn't. He is part of a large organisation. When he committed the beheadings, there was someone else holding the camera. There were other ISIS members there guarding the site. There was somone authorising the beheadings. Jihadi John was simply the public face of the movement, probably because he spoke good English.

Now consider the way the news will be greeted in the ISIS controlled areas of Syria and Iraq. A quick scour of socia media etc shows that they will say "Look, the West are hypocrites. They say they have law, but they execute Muslims with drones. They are too cowardly to do anything else".  They are addressing a radical Islamic audience, so they will say "Jihadi John is a martyr. Tonight he is in Paradise with his reward of 70 virgins". Most tellingly they will say "He must be avenged". These are not sentiments I support or agree with, but this is what is being said on the streets, on social media and in radio and TV broadcasts in ISIS controlled regions. We may not like it, but this pours petrol on the already incendary feelings of angry young men. ISIS do not put their horrific videos on Youtube to scare us. They do it to recruit the angry and disaffected. This is what we are up against and this is where the current "strategy" breaks down.

  The assumption is that if you kill the leaders and the figureheads, the philiospohy will die. Nothing could be more stupid. Every time the West acts outside of the law, we lose the argument. Guantanamo Bay is another example. For me it is beyond comprehension that you can keep people locked up for fifteen years without any judicial process. You either have some evidence to keep them there or you don't. Not only that, but some of them have been tortured for years on end. Now it may make us feel happy to know a few nasty people are having a thoroughly rotten time, but like a good Judo competetor, they are using our own strength against us. Given that there was no realisitic way of arresting Jihadi John, I have no issue with stopping him in this manner. I do however have a massive issue with the gory press coverage of the assasination. Why do we give the ISIS propagandists the opportunity to say "Look how they celebrate when a Muslim is killed"? Surely if we'd said "We deeply regret the fact that we couldn't make this individual stand trial for his crime, but this action was necessary as the man was a brutal serial killer and it was the only we we could prevent him killing innocent people, in direct contravention of both International Law and the principles of the Koran". If that was the only headline in The Sun and on Fox news, don't you think it may have been far more powerful. Glorifying that you have extra-judicially executed someone by "vapourising" them sends a completely different message to young and impressionable men, who are in the process of being radicalised.

In the west, we are blessed with the most uninspiring, useless crop of Politicians in living memory. Barack Obama has no clue about foreign policy. He's more than halfway through his second term and he hasn't come up with a single idea to deal with the issue. David Cameron is even worse. He has no authority, no plan and no clue. Wheras Britain and the USA have historically lead the west in such matters there is a complete vacuum. Don't get me wrong, I think that Bush and Blair were the architects of this disaster, but at least they understood the need for a plan. Whilst that plan was pretty disasterous for Iraq, Cameron and Obama have simply stood like rabbits in headlights as Libya and Syria have imploded. They have buried their heads in the sand, whilst ISIS have put down roots and bloomed.

The one leader who seems to understand the threat and have recognised the need for action is Vladimir Putin. His solution to the Syria crisis is not pretty. Bomb ISIS, strengthen Assad and then hope he wipes them out. Cameron and Obama wring their hands but they have no alternative. They have no plan. However you look at it, Syria is the Primary tumour. It is where ISIS are being driven from. If we have no other solution, I can see no reason why we should criticise Putin.

But there is another way. Ask yourself this. Do we really believe that our concepts of freedom, justice and democracy are worth defending and worth making sacrifices for? If the answer for you is yes, then those are the terms which we should address ISIS by. We should state our fundamental principles. We should constitue, under the auspices of the UN (after all that is why it gets billions of funding every year), a panel of regional experts to try and formulate a plan to actively deradicalise the angry young men in Syria and Iraq. We spend billions bombing them. Surely some of that money would be better spent educating them. As to the likes of Jihadi John. We should specifically state that extra judicial execution is a last resort. We should state that our preferred method would be to capture such individuals and see them put on trial for their crimes. If this is impractical or impossible and we need to stop them to spare innocent individuals, so be it. I personally would say to the likes of Jihadi John "Surrender yourself  and we will guarantee you a fair trial, where you will have legal representation" most wouldn't take up the offer, but when it becomes clear that they are losing, maybe it would not be such a bad option, to spend your life in a comfy prison, with hot dinners and a telly.

 We also have to try and end the Syrian civil war. Clearly this isn't a simple matter, but  Cameron and Obama cannot bury their heads in the sand. They are clearly scared that Putin has hijacked the plane and is steering a very different course to the one they wanted. As they lack the cojones to stop this, then they should at least try and make sure that the groups we have been rather tepidly supporting are not massacred as part of the settlement. If they are, then that will create another generation that believes the West is completely untrustworthy.

Which is in effect the problem. The West is not trusted in the Middle East. The reason for this is not irrational it is simply based on reading of history books. The only Arabs in the middle east who have ever been treated fairly and decently by the west are those who are rich, powerful and sit on large oil reserves. We turn a blind eye to all manner of sordid practises in coutries such as Saudi Arabia. We ignore sexism, racism, religious intolerance, beating floggings, stonings and hangings. What sort of extraordinary double standard can we have that says we turn a blind eye to stonings of adulterous women in Saudi Arabia, but we how with disapproval at ISIS murders? Until such time as ISIS can't say to angry young men "Look how these hypocrites behave" we really have nothing to counter their propoganda. If our leaders in the West were honest, they'd take a long hard look at themselves and then set up a properly funded UN task force to deal with terrorism in a fair and just way. We have some sort of model in South Africa with the concept of the Truth an Justice commision. It won't happen overnight. What we need is a UN sponsored plan, where the people of Syria and Libya and other places can see some sort of infrastructure put into place to guaraantee justice and to address the issues which drive the hate and anger. Ideally if external foces have to be used, they should be from countries which are predominantly Muslim, so there is no charge of crusaders arriving. There are many poor Islamic countries that would welcome a UN subsidy to provide peacekeeping forces. A scheme which aimed to bring peace and justice would be welcomed by the populace. The Syrian people are a well educated people used to living in towns and cities with a decent standard of living. They would welcome a return to peace and prosperity.

 I suspect that ultimately the choice we have is to either start actually live the principles we claim to have and deliver a plan based on those principles or sit back and let the Russians and Assad murder every last one of them. If I was a betting man. I'd put my money on plan B being adopted by the west. Sadly I think that Plan B will result in another fifteen years of this carnage and madness.

ISIS and Freedom and fundamentalism

As a country we are forever tying ourselves up in knots, working out how to deal with the behaviour of people who sit at the extremes of religious fundamentalism. I was reminded of this today as BBC London featured a story where an ultra orthadox Rabbi has stated that women shouldn't drive and those that do, and drive their children to school, should be turned away at the gate. Whilst I personally cannot for a second fathom who anyone in this day and age would even want to follow such an ultra orthadox path, it is a free country. I do take the view that if you sign up to a club (or a religious education for your kids), then you sign up to their rulebook however ridiculous. If the women in question don't think that the school is setting a good example for their kids in the year 2015, then take your kids out of the school. If the Rabbi is simply expressing his opinion, fine, so what. You don't have to attend his Shul and there are plenty of sensible Rabbi's in London who run eminently sensible organisations. The way to change attitudes in such hard line communities is to vote with your feet. Of course there are some women who may feel that they can't oppose their husbands views and must stick with this nonsense, but surely if the husband has bought them a car, there is a need for a sensible family conversation.

Perhaps the worst example of extremism we see is ISIS. This organisation is rampaging across Syria and Iraq and perhaps more disturbing, hundreds of Western Muslims are attracted to join its Jihad. Western governments are at a loss to deal with this. I personally believe that we've approached the issue from completely the wrong angle. If I were in David Camerons shoes, I'd take a completely different approach. In a free country, we can't stop people joining ISIS. We can't stop them getting training and participating in military activity in foreign countries. So what can we do? Well I take the view that it is their choice to join an organisation committed to destroy everything we beleive in. Until they've actually committed a crime, they've done nothing wrong. Just thinking about it is a perfectly legal activity. So what we need to do is help them with their thought process. Where they pose a threat to us is not with the thinking about joing ISIS or even going to Syria to sign up. It is when they come back. We send a small fortune on trying to police this. The solution, as far as I am concerned is far more simple. We simply say "If you are planning to join ISIS, give us back your British Passport and we'll pay for a one way ticket to Syria. As you clearly hate our society and values, you won't be coming back though". I wonder how many of those who have gone, would have done so if they'd realised that it was a one way ticket?  As far as I am concerned, we are better off without such dangerous people. I am sure many will say "but what about impressionable teenagers, who have made a terrible mistake?" Teenagers make life changing terrible mistakes all the time. Some injure themselves, some kill themselves in acts of high stupidity. They do not however pose a risk to society at large. I don't believe in forcible deportation of British Citizens, but if they really hate our country and our way of life, then good riddance. I am sure that such a hard line policy would focus minds. Of course some will still go. Some will realise they've made a terrible mistake. There will be heart renching TV documentaries about how unfair the system is. But the bottom line is that if they feel they are old enough to make such a decision, they are old enough to live with the repercussions.

Like anyone who joins any fundamentalist religion and signs up to the rule book, they don't have to. If they sign up to one which simply has potty rules like women not driving, that only inconveniences them and is none of our business. If they sign up to one which sees our destruction, then that is a different matter. Then it becomes our business and we have to manage the risk as best we can. To me burying our heads in the sand is not managing the risk properly.