After London Attack, PM Calls For Internet Regulation To Fight Terrorists (cnn.com)

CNN reports that "At least seven people were killed in a short but violent assault that unfolded late Saturday night in the heart of the capital, the third such attack to hit Britain this year." An anonymous reader quotes their follow-up report: Prime Minister Theresa May has called for closer regulation of the internet following a deadly terror attack in London... May said on Sunday that a new approach to tackling extremism is required, including changes that would deny terrorists and extremist sympathizers digital tools used to communicate and plan attacks. "We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed," May said. "Yet that is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide. We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning."

Comments

MO

[Nemyst]

1. Terrorist attack.
2. Call for increased surveillance, overreach.
3. Learn more about the terrorists, but don't arrest the right ones in time.
4. Rinse, repeat.

This is almost starting to feel staged at this point. Every single country does this, and it always turns us more towards 1984. The terrorists are winning.

Re:MO

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, you need some laws in there about "saving the children"

Re:MO

[AmiMoJo]

She is trying to shift blame onto the internet and companies that make secure apps, because she has utterly failed herself. As Home Secretary and now as PM, she has slashed police numbers by nearly 20,000 and tried to make up for it by increasing the use of ineffective surveillance.

Re:MO

[hcs_$reboot]

Don't forget there is an important election this week in the UK, and facing another attack the PM has no choice but to propose shocking solutions, and Internet is easy to blame.

Re:MO

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly, I'm not that concerned about being run over by a van, on the internet, or stabbed to death by a terrorist, on the internet*, and slightly more concerned about being run over by a van, or stabbed in real life.

* which was entirely my teams fault, I would've been fine if they defended mid or bombsite A where the fucking bomb was dropped. Also: Lag.

Re:MO

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a disturbing dead zone between the watch lists and the events. You might ask yourself why it seems that all of these terrorists were on watch lists, but nothing was done about them and they committed the heinous act they were anticipated to. What was the point of the watch list then?

The government is in a position where they can't arrest you before you do something unless they have hard evidence of the plan. I have a feeling they're going to use these events as a means to push for public acceptance of "pre-crime" arrests that have flimsy standards of evidence. Only the naive will think this will be limited just to suspected terrorists. Remember the black-bag disappearances in the movie "V for Vendetta"? Yeah.. that's the future you're looking at.

Re: MO

[Zocalo]

I wish we could, but at this point we're pretty much fucked whatever we do. Depending on how you interpret the election polls (which are probably no more reliable than the last ones anyway), there are really only two possible outcomes in the general election next week:

1. The electorate rallies around the Conservative Party (essentially "UKIP Lite" at this point), which results in at least five more years under Theresa May and a raft of 1984-style legislation as result, but at least *some* chance at getting a non-catastrophic outcome from the upcoming Brexit negotiations.

2. Enough of the electorate decides to vote for other parties that we end up with a hung parliament and all the main parties bickering and backstabbing to try and form a workable coalition which then has to run a government through what might be the most critical period of the UK's history since the Battle of Britain in WWII. That *might* rein in the Orwellian crap at least a few notches, and will almost certainly be the final curtain for Theresa May, but means we'll be going into the first round of Brexit negotiations (which is just one week after the vote, FFS!) like a headless chicken, and probably without much hope of things improving for subsequent rounds.

Never mind being careful what you wish for; the lesson here is that you need to be *really* careful what you vote for, because however this pans out it's going to be on the UK electorate just as much as it is on the politicians they voted for.

Re:MO

[darkpixel2k]

Terrorism: The use of unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Go find an old copy of Black's Law Dictionary from the 1700s. The original definition of terrorism *was* a government creating fear or harm for political reasons.

Re:MO

[TheRaven64]

Which shows a bit how broken our country is. The opposition leader was shouted down by most of the press for having the temerity to suggest that bombing random stuff isn't the solution to all foreign policy problems and that maybe nuclear weapons aren't actually that useful in massively asymmetric conflicts.

Re: MO

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm hoping for a hung Parliament or at least the Tories getting no better than a reduced majority and consequently needing to rely on more support from Parliament as a whole to get anything controversial done.

If that means Theresa May goes then that's a plus. I don't think she's a good PM, and it appears that many of the government policies that I disagree with originated in her office.

If it means that there is less headline-friendly political meddling in negotiating Brexit and the diplomats can quietly get on with it in the background and reach a reasonable agreement with their diplomatic counterparts, then as far as I'm concerned that is probably also a good thing. The last thing any of us need, on either side of the Channel, is a Brexit negotiation conducted through media soundbites by vulnerable Tory ministers from one side and wounded EU politicians like Jean-Claude Juncker from the other.

Re:MO

[PsychoSlashDot]

She is trying to shift blame onto the internet and companies that make secure apps, because she has utterly failed herself.

You are right.

I have yet to hear "we suspected the attackers were up to no good but while we were working with various Internet companies to try to get lawful access to their communications, they moved ahead with their attack."

No. We never find that to be the case. At best, the people who do these things are on list of people who "knows a guy who is related to a guy who knows a guy who has the same name as someone who once said something that rhymes with a jihad slogan."

"Regulation" won't do anything productive unless "regulation" means "blanket permission and ability to data-mine, tap, access, and record all communications at all times, without cause for specific suspicion." Which is exactly why the major governments of the world are begging for "regulation".

Re:MO

[Skuld-Chan]

People get similarly upset when its suggested guys like Osama Bin Laden were made in America.

The US government via the CIA thought it was hilarious to dump Egypt's criminals (which they radicalized via torture) on Afghanistan to essentially troll the Russians.

Re: MO

[gweihir]

I don't think there is _any_ chance of the Brexit negotiations not being catastrophic for the UK short-term. Long-term, the UK will have to re-apply to the EU, of course without all the special considerations they had before. But short-term, the EU needs to make an example out of the UK. It is a question of survival and the EU bureaucracy knows that. It is also very easy to do, just give the British the same conditions as any other non-EU country and they are massively screwed. I predict that is going to happen, because the whole British political landscape is living in a deranged fantasy about their worth to the EU and have done so for a long time. There is a large number of EU politicians that are glad to finally be rid of this petulant child that always needed something special in order to be satisfied and that never understood what teamwork means.

Re: MO

[Dogtanian]

It looks like there's a good chance that Theresa May will be gone whatever the outcome of the election.

Yes; it was clear from the start- from May herself- that the reason for calling this election was to increase the Tory majority and thus win a clear mandate to pursue Brexit in the way that she wanted.

Of course, back then it seemed almost certain that she would increase her majority- Labour was seen to be in disarray and expected to lose disastrously, and there was no real UK-wide competition.

So expectations- and the whole reason she called the election- require her to increase her majority. If this doesn't happen- and even if she wins with a reduced majority- it's still going to look very bad for her.

Ha ha!

If she doesn't doesn't deliver an increased Tory majority then expect the knives to come out.

Indeed, even the Unionist-biased Scotland on Sunday (the Scottish Tories having positioned themselves as the party of the Union for those opposed to the independence-favouring SNP) ran with a lead story saying that anything less than the overwhelming victory she effectively promised could well prove fatal to May.

Ha ha HA.

Re: MO

[Dogtanian]

Only a good third, 17 of the 46 million, electorate voted for a Brexit, implementing it without a say of the other two-third is plain undemocratic.

Speaking as a "Remain" voter... still no. Unless you're going to legally require people to vote, then that's how it works. It's arguable that (like most referenda) the Brexit vote should have been designed to require a larger majority, but that's beside the point here. The 27% of people who were eligible to vote but chose not to had their chance.

If any of them were in favour of Remain and *ever* want to whine about getting screwed over by Brexit... STFU. It's too late. You had your chance, and you wasted it. You chose to accept what you were given, even if that's only because you were too f*****g lazy to visit a polling station. You're as much to blame as the Leave voters and you deserve the consequences.

Anything except the obvious solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stop importing mass numbers of insane subhumans who want to kill us."

What?! That would be CRAZY! It would be like... um... actually solving the problem?

Re:Anything except the obvious solution:

[religionofpeas]

I'm impressed with this device you have that can predict the future

Not that hard.. the current crop of terrorists are all 2nd-3rd generation immigrants that have never shown any desire to adopt western values. It's very likely that the next generations of immigrants aren't going to do any better, especially since they can just move into the current Muslim dominated neighborhoods, and stay far from kuffar. And that's not even counting IS militants among the immigrants.

Re:Anything except the obvious solution:

[Kjella]

I'm impressed with this device you have that can predict the future.

I'm sure the CDC would marvel at my crystal ball if:
1. We have good domestic apples
2. We import foreign apples from disease-ridden areas
3. The same bad apples show up domestically

The difference is we have no problem with offending non-infected foreign apples by denying them entry, we do this all the time with produce, animal products etc. even though it's probably 99% harmless. The problem is that even just a small handful of terrorists can keep your country hostage, France entered a state of national emergency on November 2015 and it is still not lifted. When you're in a state of emergency where the normal rule of law is suspended for years then that is the new normal. So what are they going to say, that in six months the threat of terror is gone? One year? Two years? Three years? Europe has infected itself with a virtually everlasting case of Islamic terror. Nobody knows who the next terrorist will be, but we damn well know what we've done these last couple decades to make it so.

Re:Anything except the obvious solution:

[mean pun]

Not that hard.. the current crop of terrorists are all 2nd-3rd generation immigrants that have never shown any desire to adopt western values.

This is simply not true. If you look at the profiles of just about all recent attackers, never shown any desire to adopt western values is the exact opposite of their profiles. Even the 9/11 attackers did not match that profile at all.

It's very likely that the next generations of immigrants aren't going to do any better, especially since they can just move into the current Muslim dominated neighborhoods, and stay far from kuffar.

You were wrong about the attackers, you are now generalising without any proof or support from reality to the entire immigrant population, and you're extrapolating without any proof to future generations. In other words, you're talking nonsense again.

And that's not even counting IS militants among the immigrants.

There are so few IS militants among the immigrants that German neo-nazis had to create fake ones for their planned false-flag operations. And that makes sense, if you think about it. Which group are these immigrants fleeing from? Hint: the group has the letters IS in their name.

Re:Anything except the obvious solution:

[AmiMoJo]

Actually, most of them have adopted most western values. If you look at the 7/7 bombers, or the Manchester bomber, they were heavily invested in British culture and most of our values.

The mistake people keep making is to think that murder and terrorism are so extreme that they require a total rejection of western values, but actually the majority of murderers and terrorists in the west are... Westerners. It's more like a general problem with human beings, and with people getting into a bubble where that shit starts to make sense.

Look at that Ander Breivik guy. Killed nearly 100 people, most of the children. Very well planned attacked. Basically radicalized himself, with some help from other extremists on the internet who convinced him that Europe was at war.

I'm not saying Islam doesn't have particular issues, but they are not unique to Islam and it doesn't help to just think that these people are somehow existing in a parallel culture inside our own.

Re:Anything except the obvious solution:

[Kjella]

Not that hard.. the current crop of terrorists are all 2nd-3rd generation immigrants that have never shown any desire to adopt western values.

Some. But there are also some that initially have been very western/liberal, had some sort of religious awakening and looking back on their past life they see it as very decadent and sinful. Those are often the leg men, who feel they owe Allah so much back taxes their only way to paradise is jihad. These people are often radicalized quite quickly in a matter of weeks or months while these feelings are new and intense and is often why it shocks the neighbors.

Re:Anything except the obvious solution:

[Imrik]

I'm far less worried by the terrorists than I am by the growing population of Muslims that aren't integrating with the population, even to the point that Sharia Law is the law of the streets in some neighborhoods. If this trend were to continue it is entirely possible that in the future they will start voting for their religious values to be imposed on the rest of the countries involved.

Re:Anything except the obvious solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the 7/7 bombers, or the Manchester bomber, they were heavily invested in British culture and most of our values.

I'm calling bullshit on this. The Manchester bomber - Salman Abedi - is the one with which I'm familiar. He was from a traditional, "super religious" family, according to his neighbours. Even leaving aside the matter of which religion it was, being devoutly religious is already antithetical to mainstream British culture - and the fact that the family kept up a traditional Libyan lifestyle after immigrating suggests that they didn't really take on British culture, except for a few of the more superficial ones, like football and console games.

Unfortunately, the aspect of modern British culture that he did take on was social-justice activism: he lodged a complaint about Islamophobia on the part of a teacher who expressed disapproval of suicide bombings. There seems to be a worrying, and increasing, alliance between radical social-justice activists and Islamist terrorists.

Sources: A, B.

the majority of murderers and terrorists in the west are... Westerners. [...] Look at that Ander Breivik guy. Killed nearly 100 people

Anders Breivik's shooting spree in Oslo was, in fact, the third-largest attack in Western Europe since 2001 (source). Of the top ten attacks in this era by death toll, seven have been ideologically motivated by Islam, one (Anders) was extremist right-wing, and the other two were unaffiliated or unclear.

So the majority of terrorists in Europe come from the 10%-or-so of the population that are Muslim. And within that, the evidence suggests (see Salman Abedi), the terrorists come from the small subset who are devoutly religious, never really integrate into their host communities, and react negatively to any criticism of Islam, or even of violence done in the name of Islam.

Re:Anything except the obvious solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm calling bullshit on this. The Manchester bomber - Salman Abedi - is the one with which I'm familiar. He was from a traditional, "super religious" family, according to his neighbours. Even leaving aside the matter of which religion it was, being devoutly religious is already antithetical to mainstream British culture - and the fact that the family kept up a traditional Libyan lifestyle after immigrating suggests that they didn't really take on British culture, except for a few of the more superficial ones, like football and console games.

Yes, a vodka-drinking, weed-smoking party guy is EXACTLY what a conscientious follower of "traditional religious" values would be.

Salman Abedi profile.

You really didn't think anybody paid attention to the reports on him?

Religion is basically evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam and Christianity are both dangerous evils. Let's be done with this fictional nonsense.

Not Just the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop at regulating the Internet? They were driving a white van when they carried out the attack so clamping down on white van use seems like a good idea right now. They were also carrying knives so those must be made illegal or their sales closely monitored.

What I'm waiting for is the usual statement that 'these men were already known to the security services', further proving that all of the Internet monitoring and phone tapping is of no use whatsoever.

So in other words, ban porn?

[squiggleslash]

That's what this is actually about. "Oh noes! Terrorists! We must immediately implement my agenda of Internet censorship, which is actually about porn not terror but shut up!"

You know what I'm fed up with? Politicians who crap their pants every time a terrorist does anything. That means you Ms May. You're doing exactly what they want you to do. For all Thatcher's faults, she didn't act like you and the majority of those politicians who proclaim themselves anti-terror do.

Terrorists are not going away. Either live your values, or live in fear. Your choice.

Re:So in other words, ban porn?

[Mashiki]

You know what the difference between today and the 1980's were? That the attack in San Bernardino and Pulse Nightclub both could have been stopped. What happened? Oh that's right, people were afraid to call police/terrorist tiplines/etc for fear of being labeled "racist" because muslim. Huh let's look in the UK, and all those previous terrorist attacks with the same reason that nobody called tiplines. And how about more in the UK, with those girls raped and being sold as sex slaves(just a fyi it's happening in the US too). And the muslims trying to take over schools to turn them into extremist breeding grounds(see trojan horse scandal). Well what do you know? In those dozens of cases it was all the same thing too.

I think we've got a problem. You know what it is? People are too politically correct and afraid of being labeled racist/islamophobe/etc. So afraid that they'll turn a blind eye to people preparing to carry out a terrorist attack. Until that changes this isn't going to change either. We could, avoid the whole "implement internet agenda thing." The answer is in this paragraph. And you know as well as I do that the left has a very long history the last decade of going after people for daring to say "that muslim looks like they're going to blow people up." After all, that's what happened in Rotterdam and why 1000+ girls were raped and used as sex toys after all....for over a decade.

Re:So in other words, ban porn?

[Mashiki]

Most people are not that sort of quivering weakling fearing being called names.

And yet that's the exact reason why those things happened. But you'd best realize that most people actually are afraid. That's one of the primary findings of the rotherham case. That's also one of the findings of the san babernandio attack, and pulse. And they're afraid of losing their job if they speak up. Of being attacked by a lynch mob on twitter for saying something. Of friends and family doing the same. I'll bet $20 that it was the exact same thing this time too. Or it could simply be the outright refusal of muslims inside the community deciding to ignore it, that one happens quite often too. Sometimes the local mosque is complicit to boot, which was the case of the parliament hill shooter here in Canada.

Re:So in other words, ban porn?

[MtHuurne]

Huh let's look in the UK, and all those previous terrorist attacks with the same reason that nobody called tiplines.

People tipped the authorities about the Manchester attacker on 5 separate occasions. The problem in stopping these attacks is not a lack of information. Which also means that additional surveillance will not lead to better safety.

Re:So in other words, ban porn?

[darkonc]

Uhm, no. It's not about porn. It's about control over, and access to, what people say to each other in private.

The death toll in this attack is roughly equal to the number of people who have died in the UK because of DUI. The only difference is that DUI deaths are so common and so continuous that they're rarely front page news, much less international news.

In the US, you have on average, 650 gun deaths per week. 500 can be attributed to 'Christians'. Less than one per week can be attributed to 'Muslim Extremists'..

Re:So in other words, ban porn?

[Mashiki]

Which is exactly what the inquiries have said over and over and over again as well. Or did you miss the part where I said people were afraid of being labeled racist? You think that something like the Trojan horse scandal or Rotherham didn't happen because no-one called the tip lines? No it's because people were afraid of being labeled racist. And those people were in the police and security services.

I made a general statement as people, not the agencies themselves. The agencies might have the info, it's again the people being afraid of using it because of rampant political correctness.

Bringing a router to a knife fight...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Madam, a bunch of barbarians with knives jumped out of a van and killed civilians!"

"Begin spying on people on the Internet. That'll surely prevent it from happening!"

As if said barbarians are using internet to communicate at all, much less for openly discussing their acts... "Nahoul, have you acquired the weapons of our holy jihad to take place on London Bridge on June, 3th?" — "Yes, Assoud, very long sharp knives and a Hertz van".

They probably discuss shit in private in some back alley or something, geez.

Re: Bringing a router to a knife fight...

[Entrope]

Well, they'll be able to arrest the perps if those perps post video of the attack to YouTube! If we're really lucky, Google will prevent those videos from being monetized via ads.

goto step one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does she have any evidence these people actually used the internet to plan what they were doing?

And if so, why didn't all the existing mass surveillance catch them? Is ratcheting up the level of surveillance really going to help? That was their excuse for implementing it to begin with, and so far it hasn't.

There is no end to it:

(1) call for more censorship and surveillance.
(2) another attack happens anyway.
(3) goto step one, because it must not have been enough yet.

More attacks on Free Speech

[gurps_npc]

Since the dawn of time, people have confused 'stopping speech' with solving the problem. It doesn't. Despite the lying panic, communication does NOT 'radicalize' people. Instead it lets other people find out about the radicalization. While it is true that a small number of lunatics that were considering minor criminal actions upgrade to larger actions, free speech does not create problems, it REVEALS them.

Stopping free speech delays the problem at best, rather than solving them. Eventually the pent up issues burst forth into violence.

Better to have a constant small stream that is deal able rather than a flash flood.

The other side of the coin

[PopeRatzo]

The terrorists and the political leaders who are most vociferous about "fighting terrorism" need each other. It's almost like they're fighting for the same side.

One thing for sure: nothing that any of these leaders have proposed or implemented - mother of all bombs, travel bans, heightened security theater, arming the populace, internment, keeping people from bringing nail clippers on airplanes, foreign wars, building walls - is going to do anything to reduce terrorism.

Re:Why not fight them in their backyards?

[religionofpeas]

Their backyards are large parts of our cities. I hope you're prepared for civil warfare.

Re:How about fight back?

[dbIII]

The idea of "fighting back" in the last week was a deal for billions of dollars worth of weapons to the country spreading the twisted cult that's given all of Islam and all of the middle east a bad name - epic fail there. The whaddists (such as Daash/ISIL) must be laughing at how stupid we are, helping those who are funding and supplying them instead of cutting off their money supply and making it more difficult for them to influence people like the bunch of criminals that attacked in London.
They WANT us to treat it like a war, and attack the mainstream so they can get more recruits to their cult from the mainstream.

The internet is not an issue

[AHuxley]

Interesting people can move messengers around the world and wait for a week for a message to be delivered in person.
Faith groups working in closed communities don't need to bother with an internet that is been watched. They have their leaders, teachings and have a large protective community around them.
This is not groups in the 1980's getting funds from banks, making phone calls and moving funds around using computers, emails and fax machines.
This is not the Soviet Union where the GCHQ can surround the Soviet Union and listen in on Soviet officials making daily phone calls.
The UK needs to fund MI5 overtime and get its expert surveillance teams out into UK cities.
Fund the army, MI5 and let them do their work in every UK city. Watch groups, who they meet, who they talk to, who they listen to.
Map the networks of people.
Keep all results away from any groups or people in the UK gov who talk to the media.
Learn for Ireland in the 1980's. Trust only the GCHQ, MI5, the elite UK mil units and any version of Special Branch that is as secure and dedicated as the Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch was. That will ensure no information gets to groups/workers/contractors who will sell/talk/give UK policy information to the UK press/media/their company.
Learn from the 1920-70's issues when the UK had to hire a lot of experts on trust. Just as Communists filled the UK clandestine services for decades expect interesting groups to try and fill the ranks of the UK security services with needed new staff. Only hire on merit and after deep vetting of all new UK staff.

Repeat after me: This does not help

[gweihir]

Basically all terrorists in Europe of the last 10 years or so were _known_ to the state before. Did that help at all? No, it id not. And now they want to put everybody else under surveillance, despite it being completely clear that this will not help? That is at best utterly stupid, and at worst a preparation for the establishment of full-blown fascism.

Re:Should be simple

[OhPlz]

I think you're horribly wrong by suggesting that modern nations are responsible for this. Those aren't our chickens coming home to roost. Sectarian violence has always been a thing in the parts of the world that are fueling this fire. The mistake we made was letting "refugees" migrate to our countries. Now it's those refugees or the spawn of those refugees carrying out these small scale attacks. They come to our countries and bring their baggage with them. Anyone who doesn't believe what they believe must die. And now we've brought them inside our borders. That's reality. Letting this go on for decades with the hope that things will get better with no plan would be even more of a disaster. We're going to get to the point were everyday people refuse to put up with this anymore to the point where they defy our governments and then all hell is going to break loose. We don't have decades. Maybe the US does, but large parts of Europe do not. Censoring dissent on Twitter is going to change that.

Finally!

[Elixon]

- Year 2013: "BBC's websites killing Press and threatening local democracy, says Theresa May" https://goo.gl/ccgTPH
- Year 2014: "Theresa May: We need to collect communications data 'haystack'" https://goo.gl/Ew4gMf
- Year 2015: "Theresa May: Internet data will be recorded under new spy laws" https://goo.gl/1hNBdk
- Year 2016: "Theresa May's Snoopers' Charter dealt major setback as EU court rules against 'indiscriminate' collection of internet data" https://goo.gl/455OWU
- Year 2017: "Theresa May Wants A ‘New’ Internet Monitored By The Government" https://goo.gl/mGPKlx

That woman simply hates that people can freely speak through the medium she does not control!

Terrorist attack? We need more control and censorship.
Child abuse? We need more control and censorship.
Meteor heading to earth? We need more control and censorship.
Is it Sunday today? We need more control and censorship.
Nothing happened? We need more control and censorship.

Theresa May is Obsessed with Internet Regulation

[Deb-fanboy]

This news is no surprise. For as long as I have been reading about Theresa May she has been campaigning for more internet regulation. She was instrumental in eventually getting a UK 'Snooping Charter' on the books while she was UK Home Secretary. She is reputed to be a control freak in Government, which figures that she wants to create a new UK internet that she can control.

Her main problem is that she seems to have limited grasp of her brief, and is very exposed when she is asked unprompted questions. For example when a nurse told her that she has been on the same salary as a National Health Service Nurse as she earned in 2009, she looked the nurse in the eye and declared that there is no 'Magic Money Tree'

She has coped with her poor people skills by refusing to turn up for election debates, instead using the tame UK media, papers like the Daily Mail, and the BBC to promote her. However her lack of ability has become so obvious that what looked like a massive majority (which is the reason why she called a early election) is evaporating and it looks like the UK will enter Brexit negotiations with a hung Parliament)

To add to her problems She has refused to liaise with the Scottish Parliament to the result that they have asked for a referendum on Scottish Independence to co-inside with the end of the Brexit negotiations.

Theresa May may go down in UK history as the most incompetent Prime Minister in our long history.

Heroes

[myid]

These people are heroes:

1) A British Transport Police officer didn't have a gun. Instead of running away, he fought the terrorists with his baton.

2) As people were escaping out of the back of a restaurant, a woman stayed at the front of the restaurant. She stayed there to block the front door closed with her body, as the terrorists were trying to force their way in. Her blocking the door saved about 20 people, by giving them time to escape. After the terrorists overpowered here and forced their way in, she was able to escape.

I sometimes wonder how unselfishly brave I would be, if I were in a situation like that. I hope I'd unselfishly brave, like those two people.