Social sites should share info

editorial image
Share this article
0
Have your say

Internet firms that give terrorists ‘a place to hide’, and make it impossible for security services to access crucial messages, are to face a punishing crackdown.

And not before time.

It is beyond a scandal they’ve been able to get away with it so far. As one newspaper has pertinently put it: “Whose side are they supposed to be on?”

Amber Rudd, Home Secretary, has announced she plans to act. I should hope so too. Such conduct on the part of some internet firms strikes me as a grave crime, which some say borders on treason.

It’s unbelievable this has been going on, while lives continue to be lost at the hands of terrorists.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the attack on Parliament last week, there have been absurd calls for such acts not to be ‘dignified’ with the description of terrorism and should be classed as ‘ordinary’ crimes.

I have never heard such nonsense, including a plea that the media report these events ‘proportionately’.

It’s claimed such ‘downsizing’ would reduce the amount of publicity these acts attract, since that’s what the terrorists like.

What is more important is not concealing from the public what’s actually going on, as to do so would begin a perilous course, leading to the slippery slope of routine lies constantly dished out by the likes of Soviet regimes.

That must not be allowed to happen here.

- EU Remainers have been on the march again, snarling up traffic in the capital. The trouble with the Remainers is that they are dead but won’t lie down. They will not accept they were beaten in the referendum and should have the grace to accept that.

A new look should be taken at these protest marches.

The right to march should be judged against the right of ordinary folk to go about their lawful business, but who are frustrated by traffic chaos and other restrictions. Surely that is more important than disruptive marches?

The Mayor of London should consider this. If people must march, why can’t they just parade around Hyde Park, thus minimising the disruption to the lives of everyone else, whose rights are no less important?