The London Attack Newsnight

Two days after the London Bridge attack, these

But remarkably, in one case, Khuram Butt, his jihadism seemed

How on earth was it allowed to end up in a murderous

I was one of the chief radicalisers and recruiters for Al-Qaeda here in

the United States from 2007 until my arrest in 2011. I would say he

appeared on our radar rather late, but was an active member.

We'll reflect on some of the awkward choices now facing us

To the sick and evil extremists who commit

these hideous crimes, we will defeat you.

Believe it or not, the US president has taken exception

"After Donald Trump's tweets, I have learned that Whitehall

is going cold on his proposed state visit."

We'll get the White House view from this Trump advisor.

As the city returns to wary normality, how should

It's tough when you've got children and you're dropping them at school a

road away from where it happened. You don't feel necessarily safe,

doing that, but life has to go on. We'll debate the best way

to root out extremism. London got back to normal

today, it has to really. But the word "normal" has

an ominous connotation. Is terror on the streets a normality

to which we now have Is it set to become like the ghastly

shooting sprees in the US, where the angrily insane too

frequently manage to kill several As it happens, a disgruntled

employee did that in Orlando in Florida today, taking the lives

of five others. Well, no country can be relaxed

about random murder, and so it is no surprise that here,

the London Bridge attack has had political fallout,

and it has led to inevitable soul-searching as to

whether we are preventing attacks One of the attackers

was a well-known jihadi - he had mixed with other prominent

extremists. John Sweeney has been piecing

together what we know about him, These are the faces of two of the

three men who killed seven people on London Bridge on Saturday night.

Rachid Redouane is a Moroccan with Irish nationality, of whom little is

known. The identity of a second killer has not yet been revealed by

the police. But the third, Khuram Butt, was the jihadi killer who not

just hid in plain sight, he starred in a TV documentary. This way lads,

lads, lads. Come here. The group display the black flag of zraum, a

symbol associated with Islamic armies for 1200 years... The

26-year-old from barking made little secret of his sympathy for so-called

Islamic State. Here he is praying by an Islamist flag used by IS. This is

the home of Khuram Butt. Blue tarp of the police forensic team there.

There have been three terrorist attacks on Britain in the last three

months. Westminster bridge, the attacker, there were few clues to

the likelihood that Masood would do what he did. Salman Abedi, there

were some clues, but to be fair to the police, they were fuzzy. But

this man, the bad news is - there were a ton of clues that he was a

potential jihadi suspect. Newsnight spoke to his neighbours who, off cam

ra, told us he was well known locally for rebuking Muslim women

who didn't wear hijabs and for inviting non-Muslim children to join

the faith. This man knew him as a neighbour. It's really sad to know

what happened, it's really like honestly really sad. I am just

feeling like he might be being used by someone or brainwashed by

someone. Two witnesses told us Khuram Butt had prayed at this

mosque. Hello, hi, from BBC Newsnight. We understand that one of

the attackers at London Bridge used to attend this mosque and apparently

came here on Friday, is that right? Well, I never come on Friday here. I

don't know nothing I can't tell you anything about that. There are

mosques in the East End which have hosted extremist preachers in the

past. But this isn't one of them. They commit these atrocities in the

name of Islam. Our Koran doesn't allow people to do or act against

humanity or killing or any kind of terrorism. It is very clear. Khuram

Butt had been a member of Al-Muhajiroun an Islamist extremist

group banned in 2005, but so well penetrated by the police and

Security Services that its adherents were often not seen by a great

threat. After Saturday night, that assumption no longer stands. Khuram

Butt was a member of Al-Muhajiroun going back some years. I was one of

the chief radicalisers and recruiters for Al-Qaeda here in the

United States from approximately 2007 till my arrest in 2011. I would

say he appeared on our radar rather late but was an active member inside

of our communication platform services that we offered to those we

were attempting to radicalise. He was an administrator in a

pro-Al-Muhajiroun room. I had intimate connection was him. We

would frequently speak before they would. Add an administrator he would

have to communicate with me about the length of my speeches, the

couldn't tent of my speeches and how they might blend with the preachers

that would follow -- content. Questions for the Muslim community

but also for the police and for the people who work in the building

behind me. MI5. It's their job to gather intelligence so that they can

protect us. And clearly, they've failed. There were a lot of red

flags to the ring leader of the London Bridge attacks. But, to be

fair, their long list of potential jihadi suspects has got 23,000 names

on it. The short list 3,000 names on it. Have they failed, yes. Were they

bound to fail? The answer to that is also, regrettably, yes. More than a

dozen jihadi plots in Britain have been thwarted in the last few years.

But in the past three months, something has shifted. The people

making all the running are those who create terror. The Met confirmed

tonight that all of the 12 people they arrested in the wake of the

attack have been released without charge. But the investigation into

the attackers and their associates carries on.

Our correspondent Richard Watson has covered Islamist extremists

The name Al-Muhajiroun is not unfamiliar to you, what is the

significance of the man's link to that? It's very significant, think

I. I remember I started investigating Al-Muhajiroun in 2000,

before 9/11. I was filming in East London 2004 where they celebrated

the 9/11 attacks as being the magnificent night in terror. They

are very dangerous. They have dangerous views. In the early 2000s

they were dismissed as fools. I remember speaking to a member of the

joint intelligence committee at the time and he told me that there was a

failure of imagination about the consequences of harbouring these

kind of extremists in our society. What are the Security Services

saying today? Well, I spoke to a security source tonight and

interestingly, he didn't really say that they were avenue resources or

new laws. Very worried about speaking about anything too firm in

the election week of course, but I got the distinct impression that the

resources are not the major issue. There are two major issues about

softer ways of approaching this problem. Number one - do you attack

the ideology as the Prime Minister, Theresa May, has been suggesting? Or

do you look for longer term solutions giving young people who

are potentially drawn down this path alternative avenues and alternative

sense of belonging to bring society? Thank you very much.

Normally, the political rule is that right-wing parties score more highly

with the public on security issues than left-wing parties.

But it is a measure of how strange politics is at the moment,

that much of today has seen the Conservatives on the defensive

over whether Theresa May as Home Secretary had allowed cuts

There was a vigil in London this evening,

just next to City Hall, at which the mayor,

Just after that event, I asked him if resources

are an issue for the fight against terror.

Well, I've been saying now for months, in fact

since I first became the mayor, that we need more

That over the last seven years the Met police

As a result, the Met police has had to reduce staff, 3,000 staff lost,

closed police stations, and over the course of the next

three years, there are plans to cut a further ?400 million

There are plans to change the police funding formula which means

we could lose up to another several million pounds and it's

We are a global city, we know we are a target for the terrorists,

we've got to do all that we can to keep our city safe.

And one of the first things I did as mayor was to approve

I don't believe all our officers should be armed but I do believe

in having a decent number of highly trained armed officers,

to make sure they can respond quickly and swiftly as they did

And are you finding Theresa May is receptive of that message?

Well, look I've been lobbying unsuccessfully

for the last 13 months, and it's really important

that the government of the day recognises we need more resources

And my job as the Mayor of London, whose primary focus has to be

the security of London, I'm not going to be afraid

of saying, we are not getting the resources we need.

We have lost resources over the last seven years and the current

government's plans for the next three years are further

That will have an impact on London, whether it's officers lost,

whether it's other resources being lost, and I'll tell you this.

I speak to the experts regularly and the experts tell me one

of the best ways to keep us safe is policing by consent.

Members of the public having confidence in the police to give

them intelligence about people they are worried about.

People who are dodgy, people who have become radicalised.

And that's why I've restored neighbourhood policing.

We can only do that with resources, you know, more bobbies on the beat

Sadiq Khan the Mayor of London speaking to me earlier.

Police resources are an issue, but, of course, anti-terror

The powers of the security forces to shoot

to kill, for example, or listen in on private conversations.

On these, the Tories feel themselves on firmer ground.

The election campaign was back in full swing today,

and Nick Watt looks at how terror has affected it.

Even the most finely tuned election campaign can hit unexpected bumps.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are finding that their past is catching

up with them, as they seek to persuade voters they are best placed

to deal with terrorism. So, please, for your sake and for the thousands

of police officers who work so hard every day, this crying wolf has to

stop. The Prime Minister's claim that she is the strongest guardian

of the nation's security sits uncomfortably next to the cut in

police officers during her time as Home Secretary. We have a debate

about anti-terror legislation in Parliament the other day. Now I've

been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I

first went into Parliament in 1983. And the claim by the Labour leader

that he would consider whatever proposals the police and Security

Services bring forward doesn't quite chime with his record as a

backbenchers. Backbenchers this was meant to be the Brexit election.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn both believe the attacks in Manchester

and here at London Bridge highlight weaknesses in their opponent. But

there are also pit falls for the two leaders. The Prime Minister found

herself under strong pressure today over police numbers. Belt tightening

by the coalition Government saw police numbers fall by around 20,000

between 2010 and 2015. Theresa May claimed today there will be an

uplift in the number of armed police officers, but the number of armed

police officers fell from around 7,000 in 2010 to just over 5,500 in

2016. The Government committed last year to recruit an extra 1500 by

20201 -- 2021. Our demands placed on the Police Service is changing. We

are becoming more responsive rather than looking for things, rather than

being proactive in our delivery to the public and engaging with the

public. We can't continue to do that. That's Fire Service policing.

We need to engage more with our communities. We need to ensure that

the intelligence coming from them is able to be acted upon. Then there

are questions about the Prime Minister's claim that Britain has

been too tolerant of extremism when she said - enough is enough. You've

said that the time has come to tackle not just violent extremism

but extremist ideology, does that mean that you've changed your mind.

You'll remember you had a public row with Michael Gove in 2014 when he

said you and your officials were prepared to tackle violent extremism

but not extremist ideology. I've been very, very clear throughout

that it wasn't just about violent extremism, it was about extremism.

That's why, when I was Home Secretary, we introduced the

counterextremism strategy. You can look back. I've made various

speeches over the years, where I have said we do need to deal with

extremism not just the violent extremism. I wasn't, to be frank,

what sure she meant by enough is enough. Given that she has been in

Central Command in this area for seven years. A lot of work has gone

on. Our security and intelligence services an the police work really

hard. We need to reflect and wait to see whether this is a resources

issue or intelligence issue or analysis issue. Clearly three

incidents in three months is deep cause for concern.

times Keir Starmer was speaking at a meeting of unions representing

emergency workers who condemned the cut in police numbers, critics might

say to deflect attention from Jeremy Corbyn 's voting record opposing

anti-terror legislation. The sombre atmosphere across the country was

reflected in a vigil in London this evening. Never before has Britain

seen two major terror attacks in an election campaign, whatever the

result, the impact of these past two weeks will be felt for many years to

come. There is another political dimension

to this involving the United States and Donald Trump and his reaction to

the tragedy on Saturday. Tell us how it played out. Donald Trump has

criticised Sadiq Khan after appearing to misunderstand the clear

statement from the London Mayor on Sunday that Londoners should not be

alarmed by the increased police presence in the city after the

London Bridge attack. In a tweet on Sunday that we should be able to

see, you see that the president suggested that Sadiq Khan was saying

that people should not be alarmed by terrorism. Sadiq Khan's

office made it clear that the president had completely distorted

his remarks. But then the president came back today with another tweet

and he accuses the mayor of making a pathetic excuse after his remarks on

the no reason to be alarmed statement. M S M means mainstream

media. What has been the reaction. One minister said this, President

Trump has dug himself a whole but is not magnanimous enough to dig

himself out of it. And this does raise interesting questions about

the proposed state visit by Donald Trump to this country. Remember that

Theresa May quick off the mark may be off in January. Tonight on

Channel 4 News Sadiq Khan said that state visit should not go ahead. And

interestingly it is becoming pretty clear in Whitehall that that state

visit is not likely to happen any time soon. One Whitehall source told

me that for the last few months the visit has been in the "Pretty long

and getting longer grass". It appears the president is concerned

about the opposition he is likely to meet in this country and they will

be few tears shed in Whitehall if it doesn't happen. I get the impression

that were Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister on Friday I would not

be surprised if he cancelled that visit. , Nick, thank you very much.

I spoke a little earlier about this to Sebastian Gorka,

one of President Trump's national security advisors.

Why was the president twitting criticism of a London Mayor at this

particular time? Yeah. Let's talk about that for a moment. But if this

is going to be another discussion about a tweet for six minutes it is

a game something unseemly. The president was making a very valid

point that we have to jettison political correctness, we have to

apply honesty to the threat, and saying it is just business as usual,

don't worry about a thing, a Pollyanna-iah attitude to a thread

that has killed hundreds of people in Europe and maimed over 700 has to

be dealt with honestly. OK, I see that but then, is it not the right

response for people to get together in a constructive mindset and say

nice things and useful things, rather than just, you know,

"Pathetic excuse by London Mayor Sadiq Khan". This is the bit I don't

understand. In what way is the tweet, and I know it is just a

tweet, in what way is it helpful to call it a pathetic excuse. I will

talk about this tweet but it would be more helpful for British viewers

and the alliance between the UK and the US to talk about policy issues

and not tweets. The point is we will not come together adequately to the

task in hand unless people talk honestly about the threat to London,

the threat to Washington, the threat to DC, the threat to Paris, and that

is what the president was writing about. And that is unimportant,

substantive point, not just a tweet. But your point is that other people

are talking dishonestly about it. The Mayor of London, or the

authority. Cool in what way, other people that you are focused on,

talking dishonestly about the threat --, in what way? Those people who

spin fabulist fantasies and do not deal with the threat at hand. Is

Sadiq Khan one of these people? If his statements are meant to deny the

reality of the thread then he could be but I'm not going to talk to him,

you should ask yourself. I know that his answer is that he is not. I

sense your frustration that you were asked about your boss's tweet. I

know that in other interviews, you have said, it is just a tweet, stop

banging on about it. It is not policy. Is it useful to have him

twitting random thoughts, getting into little arguments? If it is not

policy, how is it getting in the way of clarity of message. Here I am,

confused, I was thinking he was being critical of someone when he

says something like "Pathetic excuse of London Mayor". When you put me

right and explained that he was not being critical, he does not even

know what the London Mayor's policies are. What is the meaning of

this tweet of policy? I can't help you. That is how the businessman who

has never held elected office won the election, he out trounced the

mainstream liberal left-wing media. That is the value of Twitter. Not

everything is about policy, some things about strategic

communication. As is the Twitter account that the president has. Got

it. For reasons that you will probably not understand or want to

hear many people are being critical of President Trump for picking an

argument with the Mayor of London at a time when the city is facing

attack. And you are talking for them. I'm summarising that I have

picked up that quite a few people are suggesting in political circles

that it would be inappropriate for President Trump to have a state

visit to the UK. Do you think he will be bothered of the state visit

is cancelled or called of at least time being? If anybody thinks that a

state visit is held hostage to Twitter then they have no

understanding of the relationship between London and Washington. And

that is a sad, sad day for anybody who thinks that. So you think that

all this talk about, oh dear, we had better not have a state visit, we

shouldn't have a state visit, is silly talk and the state visit will

happen, in your field. I think, if you ask Theresa May, if you ask the

people I work without your embassy, who come here regularly to talk to

us, I think they will have a very different answer of the importance

of a visit between two of the closest democracies in the world

today. Sebastian Coe Walker, not his first outing this programme.

We can continue the conversation with Chuka Umunna, who was a member

of the Home Affairs Committee, and on the line from Wakefield,

we're joined by Baroness Warsi, former Minister for Faith

Her recent book, The Enemy Within; A Tale of Muslim Britain,

looks into the flaws in government rhetoric on extremism.

Perhaps I can start with you both on the state visit thing, I'm not going

to get stuck on Trump, Baroness Warsi, do you think that the state

visit should be off? My views on this visit are already on record. I

feel that a state visit is an honour of the highest order where we lay

out the red carpet, pomp and ceremony, Her Majesty hosts, and I

think that for a man, who long before he started insulting London's

mayor showed disdain for women and had little respect for minorities,

black people, ex-guns, Latinos, little regard for the LGBT

community. He mocked the disabled and when London Ken under attack he

thought the best way to help us to attack the Maher of London. His

record is before us and I think that what Nick said before about the

visit being kicked into the long grass is best for now. I think we

should keep kicking it into the long grass. Chuka Umunna, if Corbyn wins

there will not be a Trump state visit, Willow, riding in the

carriage together. There is not a state visit. I agree with every word

that Saida just said and I think a period of silence from him would be

welcome. And defeat cancer, given his unpopularity, just think about

the huge police resource that will go into manning that state visit.

With the threat level as it is at the moment I would much rather that

our police and security services were focused on some of the

challenges that we have here, giving our country safe than frankly being

distracted by a president who as Saida has shown is perhaps one of

the most divisive politicians in the Western world. And right now we need

to be coming together. Lets go into enough is enough and what you

understand by that. Saida Warsi, what do you understand by enough is

enough and to support it because some interpreted as the extension of

a kind of antipathy towards people with extreme views who are not

violent. They are not killing people. Do you think it is right to

start turning attention to them? I think that what Theresa said in her

statement alongside enough is enough was that there was four specific

areas she wanted to look at a game which included closing down a space

online as well as off-line, revisiting policies on segregation,

to tackle segregation and separation, but the strongest point

she made is that, in a new age where we have a new emerging threat, we

are going to reveal our counterterrorism strategy. And that

includes how we prepare for an attack, how we pursue extremists,

how we protect the United Kingdom and how we prevent people from

becoming terrorists. You are happy with, if, and most would interpret

it this way, if it became government policy that we need to close down

some of the people who have been closer to the jihadists but not

actually jihadists. Would you say that is a good thing, is that what

we need to do or is that misguided? We have about 20-23,000 people of

interest. And I have no concerns whatsoever if we look again as to

how we make sure that we are watching these people, we look again

at the regime that succeeded the control orders, to see if we can use

them in a different way, whether we can change the conditions around

them, so I have no issues with that. I think the concern I have this in

relation to the Prevent strategy. Which up until now has had huge

concerns around it. We've had people like the George Soros foundation,

open society, writes what, led by Helena Kennedy QC, we had ex-police

officers, intelligence services, even the government is an

independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, say it

is time for a review of Prevent. And I hope the government does generally

review Prevent as part of its review of the strategy. Chuka Umunna, I

want to get to the heart of the issue of how harsh we should be on

people whose views are mainstream the two are not jihadists. Are they

the gateway to jihadism? Does the gate needs to be shot or not? One of

the challenges for police and security is that if they intervene

too soon, they may not get the information as to what has been

planned, which may come about but I have to say, in response to the

Prime Minister 's speech she talks as if she has not been in charge of

the Home Office for the past few years. I think there are a number of

things. Police resourcing is definitely an issue. All the

evidence we've taken on the home affairs select committee points to

local neighbourhood policing being the most valuable source of

intelligence in thwarting... Police jobs that have been cut, 20,000 down

and you're putting 10,000 back, that points to your agreeing with half

the cuts made. In an ideal world you'd have to get them up higher but

you'd have to talk to the Home Office. That's definitely an issue.

I agree with Saida on Prevent. That's a real problem. I remember

taking evidence from some young people in Bradford. There is a real

problem in the way it operates. You have a large group of young Muslim

people who feel this has turned them into a suspect community and they

are being asked to explain and apologise for having nothing to do

frankly with Islamic teaching whatsoever. And on the cyber side of

things, there were much tighter controls as to what people subject

to control orders could do as opposed to the successive roles. And

I disagreed with control orders being done away with that's

definitely the social media companies, there seems to be so much

modern in respect to them and in the end, if they are not prepared to

spend the money is then frankly government and force them to pay for

that much in the way that football clubs are forced to contribute to

policing, because we cannot just leave them to police themselves if

it is not working. We need to stop but you have both raised so many

issues, thank you both very much indeed.

We've become depressingly familiar with the rituals of terror:

after the condemnations and messages of sympathy, the determined

insistence that we will not let such attacks change the way we live.

And by yesterday morning, barely 36 hours after Saturday's carnage,

a semblance of normality had returned to London Bridge,

with thousands of commuters streaming across the river

But is the reassuring picture of a city keeping calm

Bridges, the arteries of a city, the things that functioning societies

build between communities. They're vital and they're vulnerable. The

van was zig zagging along the pavement. It looked like he was

aiming, from my opinion, aiming for groups of people. Keep moving guys.

We saw an injured person on the pavement on the left-hand side and a

little bit further, an injured person on the road. We had arrived

in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. This taxi driver pulled up,

swerved towards me and screamed, "Please, run, you've got to run,

now, get back, get back. " I turned around and saw a man with a huge

blade. I ran as fast as I comfort -- as I could. I looked up to see a guy

leaving the restaurant next to where we were. He was holding his chest or

neck. He was covered in blood. He was staggering through the market.

This morning, less than 36 hours later, London Bridge was back open,

the city back at work. There's something so reassuring about this.

We feel comforted by what looks like an almost immediate return to

normality, even if it is the Monday morning commute. It gives us a

feeling that no matter how horrific, terror cannot fundamentally change

our society. But in the shadow of you area market -- borough market,

nothing feels norm. It's tough with children, when you're dropping them

at school, a road away, you don't feel necessarily safe doing, that

but life has to go on. It makes me angry. At the moment I feel quite

numb. Obviously having children, who we have to discuss these things

with, who have no understanding of what's happening. They are just

like, why would people do that mummy? How do you explain that to

your kids? You just have to state facts. Richard Angel, who runs a

centre left think-tank, was in a restaurant nearby when one of the

attackers burst in. It wasn't until we were evacuated, avoiding the

shoes, dropped wallets, blood, victims, paramedics, police

officers, and we got outside the cordoned off area and that sense of

relief, going round counting all your friends were there. I made eye

contact with a woman on the next table who we had a silent but strong

bond with throughout the whole thing. Make sure the pregnant lady

was in a safe place. Then we were told we weren't safe and we had to

move again. For those caught up in the attacks especially there is a

tension between the question of what is to be done and the urge to carry

on as usual. Of course, we should fund our Secret Services and the

defence and the police and others who deal with this stuff and there's

very many problems out there that can be dealt with. Of course,

there's things we should do about international funding of mosques and

sending text books that are inappropriate to madrassas and

schools and various other things. But I refuse to give these people a

victory. I think most British people, the Londoners and the

Mancunians who have led a beautiful response to such hate want to do the

same. The morning after, the Sunday, community leaders gathered to do

what community leaders do, try to rebuild bridges. Leaders of the

local mosque found themselves in the familiar position of having to

distance themselves from an atrocity they had nothing to do with, of

having to explain what Islam is not. Islam means peace. It's got nothing

to do with these kind of heinous, barbaric actions. It's got nothing

to do with Islam. I think everyone would agree that's the kind of thing

people ought to be saying in the aftermath of what's just happened.

There's the fact that constantly these attacks are done in the name

of Islam. How do you prevent that view from taking hold? Your

question, in the name of Islam, I can't see or recognise how that is

the case. This is a mixed neighbourhood, tourists and City

workers rub shoulders with working-class communities from

different backgrounds. In private, not everyone has responded to the

attacks with a message of unity. I just spoke to one lady who said,

"I'd do a Trump, kick them all out." Another gentleman said to me, we're

at breaking point. We need to look after our own. These may not be the

majority opinions, they are not the kind of opinions people want to

express in front of the television cameras but they are out there. Long

before the perpetrators were identified this evening, assumptions

were made. Will arrived on London Bridge moments after the attackers

struck. Really quickly everyone just, everyone seemed to know what

it was. And knew what sort of a situation they were in. Each attack

carried out in the name of Islam, however perverted a version,

contributes to a corrosive picture. I don't think anyone that was there

on Saturday night caught up in it, the victims, the victims' families,

the emergency services, I don't think anyone will be in any doubt as

to why these people carried out the attack and what ideology would have

inspired them to do it. I don't really think we're having an honest

debate when the focus is on whether there have been too many cuts to the

emergency services and that kind of thing. As far as I could see, that

response was flawless on Saturday night. On London's other bridges,

protective barriers went up overnight, at Westminster, they know

what damage can be done with just a vehicle and a knife. They know too

that security measures alone are not enough to keep the country safe or

united. As we heard earlier,

the Prime Minister has been talking tough about the need

for a new response to terror. But how does society balance

the need for security Henna Rai founded the Women

Against Radicalisation Network and Anas Altikriti is CEO of

think-tank the Cordoba Foundation. Good evening to you both. I really

want to focus on these people who are not violent, but who were the

kind of people that were hanging around in the ambience of one of the

killers we know, what do you think our attitude should be to that,

extreme positions non-violent? It's a difficult question. We need to

address the issues that are contributing towards these people

who are essentially non-violent to begin with, but then move on to do

violent acts later on. What is the actual cause behind it? And what

that root cause it, how we can tackle that. What's your gut

instinct? Do you think we just stand by while people express views that

are very anti-Western, very extreme, maybe even flirting with Isis, but

who seem to show no sign of actually wanting to attack us or kill us? If

that was the solution to it, I would never have founded my organisation,

which was in response to such views. The other issue is we don't address

the fact that there is an ideology that people do buy into here. There

is an ideology. Absolutely. Sorry, you think the ideology does relate

to what the killers bind to? Of course. Because whatever the

grievances or the issues initially are, there is an ultimate ideology

that they do buy into. We need to address this and talk about the

elephant in the room. Is that correct, do you think? I always have

a problem when politicians start talking about ideology. I don't

think its their remit. I don't think they're good at it. If anything, I

think they make things worse. They don't understand it. The nature of

politics is about short-termism. You can't deal with understanding,

grapple with and try to counter or reform ideology within the term of

any particular Government. I would, the first thing I think the

Government needs to do is stay away from ideology. The other thing - I'm

sorry, that's a very big thing to say. It is. There are people who are

promoting hate. Out of those groups come people who kill lots of people.

I would argue that ideas are best fought with ideas. They're not

fought with either bullets or security or ratting on. Simply

you're giving credence, longevity, credibility to those who have what

is essentially very minor ideas outside the mainstream community. It

is these ideas that are causing them to actually turn around and

perpetrate - What are you talking about, so we're specific. We're

talking about the Islamist ideology that they subscribe to, anti-Western

sentiment. 99. 9% of Muslims don't subscribe to that. However the

loudest voices at this moment in time are of those extremists.

They're sympathisers who have a legitimate platform in the UK - Go

around the mosques up and down the country and point it a particular

mosque. There are many organisations who call themselves representatives

of Muslims in the UK. They will subscribe to sectarianism, sympathy

to extremist ideology. I would suggest that those are rejected by

the mainstream. The issue is how do you deal with the small number who

are not. Would your beliefs, do you fear being classed as extreme if we

went down this route of saying this, would you be one of them? We have a

serious problem in society today. We never thought - I mean, I'm almost

50 and I've spent all my life here in Britain. We never feared ideas.

We never feared people who had strange - No, but we didn't have

pockets of these things that was leading to this particular problem.

Of course we did. We always - no, no, we're in a particular position

whereby we have what I would call almost an industry that thrives on

the fact that we have these challenges. I would suggest this:

Why is it that we fear those with what we call controversial ideas so

much? The answer is so obvious. We are shutting down political debate.

We are shutting down people expressing their views, expressing

their sentiments and what is happening we are driving people, who

are part of society, who want the best for their country, the best for

their people, we're driving them more and more towards the extremes.

That is the point. If you go after those people, and that might include

him here, you may alienate another group of people and push them to the

extremes. The issue that we have here is the fact that many people

are now pandering to a victimhood ideology as Muslims, as part of the

community, that we are being alienated. If you raise the issues

of extremism and Islamism within the community, you are demonising an

entire Muslim community. Whereas that is not what we're here to do.

If there wasn't a problem, organisations like mine would not

exist. There is a clear problem. We need to address that problem. I fear

where we are at today is that anyone who speaks outside a particular

boundary, which is narrowing more and more and more unfortunately, due

to the politicians getting involved with trying to reform ideology,

what's happening is we are classifying more and more people,

who could do good, how many people amongst the people that you are

working against, how many of those could have had a conversation and

stopped Salman Abedi doing what he did? How many could have stopped the

killers on Saturday. I don't think any of those organisations would

have. Believe you me - These organisations have previously - I'm

not talking about solely about organisations. Why are you hung up

on individuals. Individuals are part of these organisations. Three

million British Muslims care about their country and their people.

Everybody knows that. They're horrified about the attacks.

Unfortunately you are excludeing a big chunk of that group because they

express views you don't like. We need to leave it there, I'm sorry.

Points taken. Thank you very much. Tributes were being paid

today to those caught up Seven people died,

killed either by the van on the bridge or in the frenzied

knife attacks which followed. Tonight, just one has

been officially named. 30-year-old Christine Archibald,

from Canada, died in the arms of her fiance, after being struck

by the van. Her family paid tribute

to their "beautiful loving Later, relatives of a missing London

man James McMullan said they believed he was among the dead,

although his body has not yet been His sister Melissa

spoke at the bridge. This morning we received news

from the police that my brother's bank card was found on one

of the bodies from Saturday But they are unable to formally

identify him until the coroner's We would like to send our

condolences to the relatives and loved ones of all the people

who lost their lives. Our thoughts are with

them also at this time. We would like to thank

all the members of the services who did their utmost to serve

and protect the population of London from these deranged

and deluded individuals. 36 people were still being treated

in five London hospitals today. Our special correspondent

Katie Razzall talked to Dr Malcolm Tunnicliff,

the clinical director of emergency He raced to work as soon as he heard

the attack had happened. Whilst I was driving, the major

incident plan was obviously enacted and staff came from a variety of

places, some were at home, somewhere out in London and I believe a number

of our stuff were near the events that happened and I came straight to

Kings. The first thing you say to the patients if they are conscience

is, who saved, we are going to look after you, you will be fine. In the

emergency department there were large numbers of patients being

treated simultaneously but what struck me was the calm way in which

it was done, I think people expect there to be lots of shouting and

carrying on but teams are calm and focused on their patients and the

care they needed to give. What kinds of injuries were stab wounds

to the head, neck, chest and abdomen, a number of patients had

defensive wounds as well where they had to try to protect themselves

from being stabbed. Whistle a large number of stab wounds from patient

Dexter who have been stabbed at the hospital but nothing on this scale

has ever happened before. We saw patients who came in with blunt

force trauma, being hit by a vehicle you can lose a lot of blood through

multiple fractures so splinting bones first and then doing repair

later on is very important. I think everyone deals with incidents like

this in a different way. I talk to my family, friends, my colleagues,

but perhaps most importantly is not to bottle this in. We are trained,

and practice for events like this, we can manage events like this. We

don't want to do it but we accept that something like this is likely

to happen again. We should be rightly proud of all the stuff of

the NHS, not just here at Kings but the Ambulance Services and hospitals

in London and of course the police for their response to the attack.

.Doc Malcolm Tunnicliffe from Kings Hospital talking to Katie Razzall.

It sometimes seems as if the debate about what to do in terror attacks

can go around in circles and perhaps no more than in relation to the

arguments about the Internet, there are questions about whether the

authorities should be given key to all encrypted material which is

tricky and also issues about the alleged ability of the evil to strut

around the Internet with too little inhibition. Theresa May yesterday

suggested more should be done to stop it so how easy is it to access

extremist material online, our policy editor Chris Cook spoke to

Elizabeth Cann double monitors jihadists material on the web. This

week there has been a lot of focus on the web giants. Has social media

in particular allowed violent hate to cover the globe? We asked an

academic who follows online Islamic radicalism about whether that

problem has been getting worse. You can certainly still find extremist

material online but it is not as easy as it used to be. Let me give

you an example. There is a video which I will not name, by a

prominent militant extremist preacher, which came out recently,

and just before coming here I tried to Google it, find it, watch it

again on YouTube and it was not there. It had been taken down. A

year or so ago, there was no way that would have been taken down, but

would have been much easier to find. Accounts promoting violent extremist

material using simple search terms tend to get taken down very rapidly.

In the old days it used to be a badge of honour when you got your

account erased or suspended. I think once that has happened maybe nine or

ten times it starts to become a pain, you have to start from zero

again each time, and therefore we find that militant extremists are

now using other platforms. We were able to find that video on a service

called Telegram. Tell me what makes Telegram useful for jihadists. The

most useful thing about it is that as the name suggests, you are

sending messages. Normally that works via groups in the militant

jihad context so you can sign up to a group, you can join at but you

cannot find that group very easily because you can't just type in and

the name of group like the Islamic State or jihad. You have to know

what their username is, they use address is before you can join the

group. That is normally quite a complicated collection of letters

and numbers that you wouldn't be able to guess. And why don't the

authorities just shut down these groups in the way they have been

going after these? I think it is much more difficult to shut down

Telegram. Partly because it is encrypted so it is secret. So it

means that we cannot see what is being sent nor can we see which

individuals are downloading, say, these videos. That an important

point you make because they are downloading videos. Directly from

Telegram. You no longer need to use next to external sites as you would

normally for longer videos and other applications like Twitter. You can

do everything on Telegram. If I were a curiouser wannabe militant jihadi,

I would probably find a way of getting hold of this material

online. It is not as easy but with a will there is still away. It needs

much greater policing. So it's not easy to stumble into violent

extremist material but encrypted applications provided for those who

wanted. Chris Cook. And we did ask the big technology

firms to join us on the programme We have an election on Thursday, the

programme will come to you from Walsall tomorrow night as polling

day approaches. But from all of us forceps and out, Dutch for now, good

night.