Setting aside for the moment the self-interest of the PTB keeping the unrest going, the thing we’re avoiding at this point is the idea of an Alcatraz, only much larger, for convicted violent offenders.
It’s as clear as day who these are, dead easy to identify, even down to a ‘type’ who should be viewed with suspicion as a first resort. They can be processed and released if necessary.
The two types are radical Muslims and radical blacks within a certain age range and with that attitude.
The island would need coastal patrols with a shoot-to-kill, plus it would need its own food and hygiene system. This whole thing is beyond the police, it needs the army.
Prisons are cleared out of all Muslim and black offenders who go to the new island. Only offenders outside this demographic left.
If the society and an all-party committee sees that it is being done right, with respect for due process of law, then it solves the first problem in two ways:
1. The really bad are taken off the playing table for now, creating at least the chance for dialogue to commence.
2. It acts as a deterrent to those who were thinking of doing it.
The major danger for the people is the PTB who will attempt to include political dissension [with no crime] as part of the offences and dissidents end up on the island. That would be a huge thing to watch for the committee overseeing this.
Also, they must ensure the Charlotte Churches and Brand airheads are not touched on the left.
As for police – the elements in there who went beyond the law also go to an island – but elsewhere.
The result would be the law-abiding would be left in the community, the left get their principle established that not all are bad.
I’ve always been against the idea of an intern-island as it’s drastic but is this any less drastic what’s going on? And you’re not executing these offenders, just interning them for now.
Those aiding and abetting the violence, e.g. Sarah Champion MP and the Rotherham social workers are also sent to the island to be with the demographics they love so much. The criterion is aiding and abetting, not membership of any party or group.
The society dialogue begins with the principle of law and order being respected. Once that’s agreed, the other matters can be discussed over a few years.