One lecturer derogatively described Shawcross as ‘the type of person who would say all current counter-terrorism professionals are woke…He is of that ilk.’ This of course discredited Shawcross to the course attendees.

The lecturer further argued that Douglas Murray and Joe Rogan are both examples of the far right. ‘To what extent should Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray be suppressed?’ he asked. ‘They have millions of followers. To de-platform them would cause issues.’

Why is a 'counter-terrorism professional' talking about Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray?

To ask the question is to answer it.

Indeed, society needs to find other ways to suppress them.

Anyone who isn't an enthusiastic gay commie will eventually be labeled as "far right".

Once someone has caught the commie mind virus she spends every waking moment scheming about how to harm anyone who opposes their gay little revolution.

We can't share the same society with these people.

0%. Next question?

The title clipped from the article is deceptive framing.

The bit about suppressing Rogan and Murray is literally the last two lines of the piece and is never mentioned previously except a passive reference that the Counter-Terrorism workshop played down Islamic threats and focused more on right-wing extremism.

The publication is openly pro-Israel.

The author, while I didn't do an early life check, is presumably a British young woman who openly complains about Oct 7th and gaslights that it's inconceivable that UK intelligence services are violating civil rights of everyday citizens because "there's too much red tape".

These are luxury attitudes. It is easy to be sat in Kings College London and feel that all cultures are equal, when you haven’t been anally raped at a peace festival by someone shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and held hostage. In the introduction to the course, labeling an organisation as terrorist was described as a problem because it ‘implies a moral judgment’. Nothing was said about why a moral judgment might be appropriate.

...

One attendee provocatively asked a former head of GCHQ whether he ‘felt bad infringing on our civil liberties in the pursuit of terrorists?’ Naïve and uninformed, the questioner had highlighted mainstream opinion that security services are routinely listening to innocent, random people’s phone calls or stalking their WhatsApps. Lacking was any appreciation the UK is exemplary. Protective legislation is laborious to the point of being near obstructive and investigations pursuing criminals and terrorists are rigorously audited.

TL;DR - Young British Jew-lover former civil servant woman thinks UK intelligence apparatus is "exemplary" and "doesn't infringe on the rights of everyday citizens because paperwork" but isn't cracking down on Muslims hard enough.

People are saying things that we don't like.

We can't really stop them, but maybe we can get society to do it themselves if we push it.

Good logic there. Now, I want you to turn to look at the closest mirror and spot the problem in all your endeavors.

They keep telling us they're our mortal enemies and we keep letting them get away with it. Why is that, white people?

Privacy rights are regularly side stepped in the US with companies giving the government materials without warrants. However I was told recently by someone that had to do a whole lot of sitting in a Baltimore court, that all of these cases get thrown out. So, why are they still doing it? Datamining makes money.

Absolute drooling nonsense from a pod of newly university-hatched morons with the connections to be in civil service, joining the rest of the retards who have turned the island into a sure enough police state.