Is our Prime Minister really this dense?

No.

Is it the "responsilbilty" bit that you are objecting to thatbags?

Agreed, Riverwalk. FB is HUUUUUGE! It'd be like asking MI5 to keep an eye on every person in China. Ridiculous.

Saying FB is equivalent to GN and that FB should have done something (implying it is somehow at fault) is like saying it's GNHQ's fault if someone posts something abusive on a thread and that "they are responsible". That's daft.

MI5 had these two under surveillance for some time also one of them was deported from Kenya after trying to illegally enter Somalia and this was known to the security services. There were also attempts to recruit one/both of them to be paid informers - if I remember rightly.

Lots of rubbish must be threatened/claimed/spouted on sites like Facebook, the police and MI5 would come to a standstill if they had to investigate each and every crackpot.

How Facebook could have prevented the killings but MI5 and the police could not, I don't know.

I suppose that's why DC wants to bring in stringent laws.

Doesn't (keep an eye...)

Malcolm Rifkin specifically singles out the "conversation" Adewobe (sp?) had online with other terrorists in the Middle East. He says MI5 knowing about that could have helped. God only knows why someone at MI5 keep an eye on the likes of FB though.

Perhaps it was, once they knew about it.

Besides: @steveswannBBC: Facebook: " we do not allow terrorist content on the site and take steps to prevent people from using our service for these purposes."

What more can they realistically do? Something has to be reported by an FB user before they can do anything. Just as on GN

They are all afraid of being sued by Facebook.

* Bags* it should have been reported immediately to MI5. By Facebook's equivalent to LucyGN, GigiGN, CarIGN, et al.

Responsible for what though? If MI5 couldn't deal with it how could a company director, or whatever the owners of FB are, do anything?

Strangely, the guardian report's online video link seems to have been blocked, too...

And that raises another question: what's the point of someone telling MI5 if it's unlikely they could have done anything to prevent the killing? (that'swhat it says on jings' link)

Someone must own Facebook. They are responsible.

interesting

Perhaps the Beeb were afraid of being sued.

I agree that if Facebook had informed MI5 of Adowabe's post, perhaps the killing could have been prevented but that raises some questions:
It has to be a person reading the post on FB. Who would it be? Facebook is not a person. Who informs someone with authority on FB about the post? Who then has the responsibility of deciding what to do next?

I think it might be interesting, if you are interested, to try and access todays debate in Parliament where David Cameron was in the House giving a speech and taking questions on this matter.

It is called 'The Murder Of Lee Rigby' and it was on this afternoon.

I say try and watch it as you will see what was actually said in 'context' and not by a media outlet that perhaps doesn't do it credit. There was a fair amount of cross party agreement.

Context can show a different opinion may be formed to that of the BBC or other media outlets, possibly.

Just clicked on the link and it says 'content no longer available'
bags you are a woman of influence. One adverse posting on Gransnet and the BBC withdraw the story

Presumably there are some things they can do, else DC would not have said what he said?
No idea what.

A sensible post JANE!

I can see the point. Sadly we are at war as surely as we have been in the past. This time the attacks are different. The internet is a very powerful tool. We need to use it just as much and as well as the terrorists do. If there is any way we can use it to our advantage then we should.

here

If Facebook had notified mI5 that Adowabe had posted quite categorically that he intended to kill a soldier, he could have been prevented from carrying out that threat and Lee Rigby might be alive today. Facebook has a lot to answer for here. They have to be brought within the law. And new laws need to be passed controlling the use of such websites.

Not dense ... just passing the buck.

The internet was always going to cause problems [with policing it, impossible really.] It's a mixed blessing, but on the whole I'm glad that we have it.There may be some [little] that sites can do, but a 'super highway' of information is never going to be straightforward when dealing with criminals.