Play Video 6:26 Theresa May responds to ‘brutal terrorist attack’ in London

Theresa May set out her position on Sunday, stating, “Enough is enough.” It was a highly political speech that set out the choices she intends to make that will affect all of us: our security, our freedoms and the way we live our lives. These are important choices with important consequences. But the real choice is between what works and what doesn’t. In her rhetoric, Theresa May is ignoring her own record of wrong choices, both as home secretary and prime minister, and continuing down the wrong path.

‘Blame the internet’ is just not a good enough response, Theresa May | Charles Arthur Read more

Theresa May accused the police of crying wolf over the impact of cuts to their numbers, and their concerns that the public were being put in danger. However, the blunt reality is that the one decision she could take that would have the single biggest impact is to reverse those cuts. In the choice between cuts to corporation tax and properly funding our police, we should fund our police. Let’s be clear: fewer police on the beat means fewer conversations, less information being passed on and less knowledge about who’s who, and who needs to be kept under surveillance.

The prime minister is right to talk about the challenges the internet brings – and how radical jihadist ideology has been allowed to thrive. But these issues are not going be solved with political gimmicks or by banning particular technologies. Instead of posturing, politicians need to work with technology companies such as Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp, and with other countries, to develop solutions that work to keep people safe. The alternative is a government that monitors and controls the internet in the way that China or North Korea does. If we turn the internet into a tool for censorship and surveillance, the terrorists will have won. We won’t make ourselves safer by making ourselves less free.

When we lent our support to the government for extending air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria, one of the Liberal Democrats’ key demands was a report into foreign funding of extremism here in Britain. The then-prime minister, David Cameron, agreed to that demand. Theresa May now has a choice. Does she publish that report, or keep it hidden? Theresa May talks of the need to have some difficult and sometimes embarrassing conversations. That should include exposing and rooting out the source funding of terror, even it means difficult and embarrassing conversations with those such as Saudi Arabia that the government claims are our allies.

And what of community engagement? Theresa May’s Prevent strategy has failed. The anti-radicalisation programme, meant to stop young minds being captured by violent extremists, was described by the home affairs select committee as toxic. It’s not trusted. David Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: “Prevent is controversial, to the point where reputable community organisations refuse to engage with it.” We have a government anti-terrorism engagement strategy that isn’t trusted and doesn’t listen to communities, even when they do try to speak out about those such as Salman Abedi who are considered a danger. In the choice between ineffective mass surveillance, and investment in the sort of intelligence we are told is best – on the ground and closest to our communities, trusted and appreciated – Theresa May chose the former through the Investigatory Powers Act.

Prevent is failing. Any effective strategy must include Muslim communities | Miqdaad Versi Read more

I trust our police and security services. Their lightning-quick response to Saturday’s atrocity shows they stand ready and prepared to protect us. They have some of the most extensive powers in any democracy anywhere in the world. However, politicians do them the greatest disservice when they offer tough rhetoric while hollowing out the very mechanisms they need to protect us.

In the choices we make, we should provide the resources necessary for those who keep us safe to do their jobs with the powers they have been given. We should also jealously guard the hard-won liberties that define us as a country. If we make the wrong choices, those who seek to change our way of life have won.