UK To Train Pro-West Islamic Groups To Game Google

Hugh Pickens writes "The British government's Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT), a 200-strong Home Office unit created 18 months ago, has said in meetings it wants to 'flood the internet' with 'positive' interpretations of Islam and plans to train government-approved groups in search engine optimization techniques, which it is hoped will boost their profile online and battle radicalization. A Home Office spokesman confirmed search engine optimization training is part of the government's anti-radicalization strategy. 'In order to support mainstream voices, we work with local partners to help develop their communication, representational and leadership skills. This support could include media training, which can help make their voices heard more widely, and support the development of skills which allow communities to be more effective in debate.' However the effectiveness of search engine optimization in reducing traffic to extremist websites has been dismissed by academics. A report produced by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) said young Muslims were much more likely to be directed to extremist material online by web forums and offline associates than by Google or other search engines. 'Tweaking the results for supposedly extremist terms would be largely ineffectual, not least because it is unlikely that any but the most callow wannabe terrorist would use a mainstream search engine to find banned material.'"

Comments

Once again I apologise

[Kupfernigk]

For the British Government. I find myself again having to explain to non-UK readers that we do not elect the Prime Minister, and owing to our elective dictatorship system, the present Prime Minister has never, in fact, been voted for by anybody outside the Scottish province of Fife. The Home Office is run by someone, Jacqui Smith, who makes Condoleeza Rice look like the greatest liberal brain on the planet (and charges the taxpayer $3000 a month for her sleeping in her sister's spare bedroom). Unfortunately, just like you with GWB, we can do nothing about it until next year. Until late 2010 then, be ready for a stream of "how stupid can the British Government get?" stories.

Re:Once again I apologise

[blackest_k]

I can't see how it will stop in 2010 regardless of who is in power, the only difference will be which asshat is in power. Obviously the political parties will offer us all something that we like the sound of and try to bury the unpopular policies. So a new government comes in or gets restored they then make some show of implementing or delaying implementing the popular policies that got them to power and at the same time doing things we distinctly dislike.

While you can argue that perhaps that it seems reasonable for a general election to be called on change of prime minister, its not backed up in practice

http://tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/politics/comments/unelected-prime-ministers-the-political-and-constitutional-importance/

"'When a party in government replaces its leader, there is no need for the new prime minister to call an early general election. Macmillan waited 2¾ years, and Callaghan three years until he was forced to hold one by a Commons vote of no confidence. Douglas Home waited a year, and John Major 15 months, but they were near the five-year limit before an election has to be called. Eden called an election almost immediately after taking office, but the parliament was more than 3½ years old. After succeeding the dying Bonar Law in May 1923, Baldwin went to the polls within six months on the issue of tariff reform, only a year into the Parliament, but lost - an unhappy precedent.' "

So its a bit of a mixed bag theres been a few unelected prime ministers from both sides. John Major was the last Conservative Prime minister to do so.
If Gordon Brown wasn't Prime Minister, it would probably still be Tony Blair but definitely not David Cameron till at least 2010.

 

Re:Sharia Courts?

[1u3hr]

hasn't the British government been allowing Sharia courts to operate in Britain for some time?

Only in civil cases if BOTH parties agree to accept its judgement:

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996. Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Obviously this could not apply to normal criminal matters (theft, violent crime, etc). So no hands chopped off for theft, no adulterers stoned to death. It's just arbitration, where the arbitrator happens to be Muslim.

Re:Sharia Courts nothing to worry about.

[auric_dude]

Not as bad as it sounds http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm as you can see other religions can also pass judgements upon small non-criminal sectors of the law meanwhile all criminal matters are reserved for the UK's state courts.

Re:Sharia Courts?

[Patch86]

It's worth highlighting that that legislation allows pretty much any body to be used as arbitrators in civil cases, as long as both parties agree to be bound by its outcome.

It "allows Sharia courts" only insofar as it allows you to appoint anyone to solve your dispute for you.