Should foreigners who encourage terrorism be banned from the UK?
Tony Blair has unveiled plans to give wider powers to the Home Secretary to deport or deny entry to foreigners who encourage terrorism.
New laws will not be needed to introduce the measures but there will be a one month period of consultation.
However, civil rights group Liberty have criticised Mr Blair's proposals, saying they attack key human rights and would jeopardise national unity.
What do you think of the government's proposals? Will they help in the war on terror?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
So what happens to extremists who are UK or EU citizens? Or is the legal definition of an extremist such that only a foreigner can be one?
Bruce Rae, Wellington, NZ
Anything is better than complacency. I am with Mr Blair on his security plans. Those who find disagreement with this should ask the families of the dead and injured their views on this.
Vivienne Syed, Bristol, England
The problem with those against Blair's actions is that they offer no alternative other than a wishy washy do nothing approach. The tired thin end of the wedge argument offers only paralysis, like a startled rabbit caught in the headlights. The Human Rights Act which prevents sending people back to places where they could be tortured was meant to protect victims, not provide immunity to those that blatantly attack our society. Kick them out, or charge them with treason.
Tim H, UK
The people who oppose this by saying people's liberties are at stake are fools. Civil right groups are behaving like there is already a unity in this country when all you have to do is look around you to see different. If these people got their heads out of the sand they would see how wrong they ever were to think everything would be alright if every culture was left to do their own thing.
Lee W, London
I understand and support deporting those engaged in crimes associated with terrorism, so long as trials are fair, and innocent persons are not targeted because of their race or religion. However, the work to sort out root causes of terrorism does not stop with deportation.
Lolly Ockerstrom, Liberty, MO, USA
It is essential for any nation to have such powers as Blair is recommending available to it for the safety and security of its people. The question should not be whether these proposals ought to be enacted, but rather how to keep such power from being abused or expanded to cover other issues beyond their given purpose. How will this authority be kept in check?
Derek, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
I fully support Tony Blair. I also think the law should have been changed sooner. You cannot live in a country that is a haven for terrorists. I want to walk the streets without fear, and not to be concerned that my children might be also at risk. We must all give Tony Blair our support.
Garry Cairns, Glenrothes, Fife
The only way to defeat terrorism is to remove its cause. The West needs to revisit foreign policy. This will help remove causes of terrorism.
Marcus , London
The issue of nationality were discussed this morning. It is simple really; one passport, one nationality. Dual nationality should be discontinued. Citizens have a choice.
Len Walton, Lytham St Annes, UK
The whole reason for fighting terrorism is to preserve our democratic rights. Blair's proposals seem to lose sight of this.
David Russell, Glasgow, Scotland
As positive as it all sounds, I'm not convinced and a little surprised. Has everyone forgotten that the London bombers were born and bred in the UK, so where for instance are you going to deport terrorists who are from the UK?
Pete, Macclesfield, UK
Has Tony Blair just woken up after a long sleep? These measures should have been put in place two years ago.
Maggie, Croydon, UK
No one can disagree that education and finding the root of this extremism is vital. However, this doesn't protect citizens now. Mr. Blair is doing the right thing.
Sue, Florida, USA
I find it a bit disturbing that the prime minister can introduce new powers without having to legislate. Surely either it is on the statute book in which case just get on with it, or it's not in which case Parliament needs to pass a bill.
The UK has every right to deport or deny entry to foreigners who encourage terrorism.
Steve JP, Pittsburgh, PA USA
No solution will be the perfect one. The details of this must be provided for the society's perusal. Any decision made will upset some so the question is who can we afford to be upset? The banned supporters of terrorism or the families of terrorist victims?
Kimberly Martin, Jamaica, West Indies
A whiff of panic. Having allowed the terrorists to become established and remain undetected Blair is trying to impress by bold new legislation. Unfortunately most of it will fail as we have signed up to the Human Rights legislation and the remainder will merely serve to upset the large percentage of law abiding ethnic minorities.
D Walmsley, Melrose, Scotland
The attitude prevalent in the below discussion indicates a distinct naivety about the functioning of anti-terrorist laws. The problem is not the sentiment of the laws but the lack of openness and transparency in the process. Their use can be justified in any circumstance by referring to unknown classified intelligence presumably from similar sources that provided the Iraq dossier.
Angus Wood, Edinburgh
It shouldn't matter what race or religion a person is. If they are guests and they stir up trouble then send them home, if they are citizens, then keep them here but prosecute and jail if necessary. Be fair be equal but be tough.
Enough is enough, I feel threatened in my own country and I'm fed up of it. When in Rome do as the Romans do. If you don't want to do as the Romans do then don't visit Rome. Simple. Blair is right, let him get his job done so that the peaceful majority - of all faiths - who live in this country can work on restoring understanding and respect. If you don't want to integrate and join in then clear off.
I can't believe how many people are supporting these proposals. Have any of you read them in full? You should all be horrified. Banning people from supporting 'terrorism anywhere in the world? And making it an offence to read different opinions on the internet or in books is a violation of people's freedom. This sounds like another step towards a totalitarian state. I beg people not to blindly accept these proposals.
Tom Harrol, London, United Kingdom
How does the British constitution stand on deporting someone that is already granted citizenship? And why is it applied only to foreigners? What if the person who encourages terrorism is not a foreigner?
Allen Aramide, Warsaw, Poland
From BBCArabic.com: When it comes to the security of Britain - an exemplary state regarding the safeguarding of the rights of minorities - I really feel sad. A few, who represent only themselves, went about killing the innocent in the name of our good faith. Any measures taken in Britain would be justified, while only those savages have themselves to blame. Let it be known: they do not represent us. Our religion cannot condone the injustice and perversion of tube bombings.
Tawfik, London, UK
From BBCArabic.com: It's a grave mistake when countries seeing themselves as defenders of civil rights undermine these same values and give in to the logic of terrorists who hate freedom and democracy. Fighting terrorism should be done through education and understanding the reasons for this worldwide phenomenon. Whereas security measures have to be taken, such measures must not be indiscriminate. We shouldn't be like terrorists who do not discriminate when they blow up their victims. Likewise, no one should be taken for a terrorist until proven otherwise.
Ali Huria, Montreal, Canada
At last, a politician taking a tough stance on extremism. No other country in the world would tolerate what the UK and its people have tolerated for the past few years. Time to crack down, and if some 'human rights' have to go by the wayside, so be it. We don't live in a perfect world.
Safety comes first then freedom.
Krishna Acharya, Hounslow
You cannot have liberty and security. Those who threaten security use liberty as a shield. If you have no locks on your doors then anyone can come into your home and burgle you. So you have locks. You cannot then have locks and complain that you cannot go freely in and out of your home. It is time for the Liberty lobby to wake up and realised that times have changed. If we don't change with them, we will go under.
Anon, Bedfordshire UK
The only way to defeat terrorism is to remove its cause. The West needs to revisit foreign policy. This will help remove the actual causes of terrorism.
Anyone would think that Tony Blair was one step from declaring martial law! Please let's get a grip here - we're talking about very select laws that will be used on extreme people. Tell me, how many have been affected by current anti-terrorist laws? A tiny, tiny number. So let's keep this in perspective.
The fact that the suspects for the 21 July failed bombings have been charged shows that Blair's proposals are not needed. We have more than enough legislation to tackle the terrorists. We don't need new laws, we need the will and resources to enforce them!
Encouraging violence of any kind is already illegal and therefore a valid reason to deny entry, arrest or deport. Blair's proposals go further and are dangerously vague. We are a mature country, 1000 years in the making and multi-cultural from its outset (Italian, French, German, Dutch and indigenous Celtic). Given the many hundreds of thousands we lost defending our freedoms in the WW2, why are we about to start giving them up now?
Darren Vall, London, UK
I am fully behind Tony Blair and the government's proposals to clamp down on extremists views. People should be proud to be British. The views expressed by these small groups are not only sickening but also should be viewed as treason and treated as such.
Mike G, Widnes
We don't need new laws, we need the government to admit its mistakes and to start using the laws that we already have. The Human Rights ruling that prevents the UK from deporting people to countries where they are likely to be tortured or put to death has been around for years. If the Government knew that an attack was inevitable why have they not been seeking agreements - such as the one with Jordan - before now?
I get the impression that they are not thinking about principles, and are quite willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If the proposed new measures go through for how long will I be able to discuss the explanation of why some are drawn into terrorism, without becoming a suspect or a criminal?
Nick Hews, South Molton
I wholly and unreservedly support Mr Blair's comments for once. However, I think we must take them in the context they were intended. These plans are not directed towards the vast majority of law abiding citizens we have in this country, whether they be born here or have come to this country as refugees, asylum seekers or any other means. These plans are directed solely at those who seek to disrupt our way of life, our freedoms to travel - to work or for enjoyment, our freedom to go where we want when we want.
Colin Hasdell, Luton Beds
There are a lot of vague terms being used, so what is a extremist/terrorist now? If this group is non-violent and just intellectual then how can we ban thoughts that different people hold. Sounds like things are getting desperate if we start to erode our democratic values.
Mick, London, UK
So far there is no reason to believe that the London bombings represent a "foreign" problem, so there is no reason to believe that just expelling troublesome foreigners will really solve much.
Tom, Toronto, Canada
I am a liberal but I have to say that I look to Tony Blair for leadership. His logic makes sense and his plan sounds thought through. I agree completely with the tack he is taking. I only wish that we in the US had such competent leadership.
I am horrified by the proposals and by the majority of opinions on this site. To start removing the right to freedom of speech is the thin edge of the wedge. Why can't I express an opinion justifying terrorism?
Tilda, Alexandria, Scotland
Well done Mr Blair, I see that you've finally started appeasing the likes of the BNP and their temporarily increased support. So now if people happen to just visit a website, read the 'wrong' publication, mention something which 'may' be seen to incite hatred, they could be seriously penalized.
At last a step in the right direction. I live in Finsbury Park and our local community was nearly destroyed by allowing Islamic extremists to operate freely for far too long, until finally action was taken. We are still repairing the damage and will do so for a very long time to come. We are a society which has swung way too much towards ensuring everybody has rights to the detriment of ensuring this is equally balanced by having responsibilities, particularly if these responsibilities mean curtailing some individual rights. History should have taught us by now that you cannot appease evil but have to act decisively. How many times do we have to go over the same ground zero?
I am a British Muslim and I agree 100% with Blair. We have brought this on ourselves by a failure to integrate. Ordinary UK citizens need to see us actively denounce fellow Muslims who advocate violence and those passive in their reaction to it. It is no use carping on about what Islam requires of us if we do not also respect law and order and the benefits we have in a country like the UK that we would not have in many traditionally Islamic states.
Amir M, Edinburgh
These measures should have had been in place from the outset.
Mark Roberts, UK
Can anyone explain to me what these liberties are that we are giving up? The one to foment hate and violence? The one to receive benefits and try to destroy the democratic system? Well, these are "freedoms" that most of us can live without.
John Cahill, London, UK
I applaud PM Blair's move to selectively deport hostile persons. Here's why. Deportation is not incarceration. Sending the enemies of Britain back to their homelands is not torture. Sending them "home" at taxpayer expense is benign and merciful. Before the U.S. or the U.K. takes this war to the next level, both nations have an obligation to demonstrate by word and deed that their enemies are truly offensive and unreasoning in their pursuit of irrational goals. Sending the merchants of hate back to their countries of origin will certainly justify any future actions that Britain or the U.S. may need to take in defense of their people.
Justin Oldham, Anchorage, Alaska USA
So now the penny has finally dropped... Weeks after we have been attacked, months after the Commissioner of Police said we would be attacked and years after most people realised that there was an enemy breeding amongst us does our leader decide to throw out the bombers and their supporters. Good idea - just a few years and a few dozen deaths too late.
Harley, London UK
This is the knee jerk lashing out of a man who knows that his pig headed insistence on fighting a war which this country didn't need to fight for reasons which turned out to have been based on incompetent intelligence, at best, and lies, at worst, has made the people of this country less safe.
Richard Thomas, London, UK
"Deporting these troublemakers" is not a solution. Where will they be deported to? Back to countries where they have a lot of home support? Where it will be even more difficult to keep an eye on them? If they've done something wrong in this country, then prosecute them. Chucking out loud-mouthed foreigners is the start of a very slipper slope. The only exception I would support would be expelling Tony Blair back to his native Scotland.
Austen, Croydon, England
People are talking about British citizens' right to live in peace, what about Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians right to live in their homeland peacefully? What have they done to deserve fear from American and British military might?
Saad, Karachi, Pakistan
Regulating the Internet? Isn't that what such "axis of evil" countries as Iran do? Deporting those who encourage terrorism is an acceptable-enough solution to the problem, but could badmouthing the government be construed as that? It'd make for a grim future if a more controlling (and ironically, radical) government ever comes to power.
John Unwin, Colchester
Those who violate the rules of hospitality and engage in destructive acts cannot claim any right of immunity from prosecution. Those who side with them and contribute to their support must also share in their guilt. But I think that good government should be required to prove its case. The matter should be handled with discretion and government need not go public on any particular matter especially when it impacts other foreign nationals. We can ask foreign diplomats to leave a country for misconduct. Why do some think that they have special privilege?
Jim Bergquist, Fresno, Calif, USA
Once you start down this road, you'll alienate more people potentially leading to more violence. These measures need to be carefully reviewed before being put into practice.
I am disgusted by the speed at which this country's government is controlling the masses with 'the war on terror.' We are witnessing a government scared that the war in Iraq and an increasingly xenophobic public (issues such as refugees) will ruin chances of Labour serving another term. And so they are using attacks on London (which killed a fraction of the figure of innocents murdered by Bush and Blair's war on terror) as a 'one size fits all' solution to their problems. Every day I become more and more desperate for the country today that I am a part of.
Candice Black, Cardiff
There's clearly a big element of hypocrisy in the PM's position. He's saying that he can ban groups like Hizb ut Tahrir (who argue that Britain should become an Islamic state), but he's not going to ban the BNP (who want to turn Britain into a white-only fascist state). This sort of double-standards serves only to create a perception amongst minority communities that they are being unfairly persecuted, and it may even drive youths into the arms of the terrorists.
The human rights act was created to prevent genocide, yet it has become the refuge of criminals. Surely our right not to be victims of crime supersedes any right the perpetrators might wish they have, otherwise the act is meaningless. I agree that British foreign policy has contributed to our current situation, but the government owe their people protection from the potential consequences of those actions.
Rob, Bath, UK
All forms of extremism are totally unhealthy whether by British nationals or by foreigners who have attained British citizenship. Their loyalty should be undivided and they should strive to live in peace with other nationalities whatever their ethnic origin. The government proposals are to nip extremism in the bud and the Prime Minister has to be commended for his forthright message. However, he should never allow racists to have a field-day in making Britain a country exclusively based on the colour of a person's skin. That would be suicide and totally unacceptable.
Pancha Chandra, Brussels, Belgium
How can anybody, including civil rights movements, openly criticise these proposals? What about the British public's right to live without fear from those living on their doorsteps? This is not about taking freedom from any religion, culture or belief, it is simply about protection for our society. At last Blair is taking on these 'reformers' of political correctness and I for one will stand beside this policy all the way.
I am a British Muslim, I think Mr Blair is doing too little too late, people immigrate to Britain to better their lives and a sick group, lucky enough to be living in the developed world, ends up bombing innocent people - this should not have happened. Limits should be drawn to freedom of speech. Nowhere should freedom of speech be equated with eulogizing terror. I agree though with the British government's sentiment of cancelling citizenship for people inciting killings and hatred.
Riz, Karachi, Pakistan
It's about time the prime minister stood up and took notice of the majority of the population rather that constantly attempting to please the minority groups. I support him 100%.
Joe, Bristol, UK
Tony Blair continues preaching prevention to combat the roots of terrorism and ignoring the consequences of his actions (Iraq War).The cost that you pay is "freedom". But Tony knows that the political cost of doing this is much lesser than the cost that he would pay for admit his errors. Anyway the terrorists won the first round.
I am completely opposed to this loss of civil liberties. So if these repressive measures are introduced I will expect the government to enforce strict restrictions on newspapers, broadcasters and politicians. Those people have the most power to communicate and influence so they must the most tightly controlled. For once the powerful should be constrained and controlled not the weak.
Andy, Birmingham, UK
Once again more promises from Blair to act. There has been a whole string of promises and gimmicks to stop crime, all to no avail. Why should this be any different? If he had acted eight years ago to stop the flood of illegal asylum seekers, up to 500,000, who have disappeared into the wide-blue yonder. The job of the police would me much easier. Another case of far too little too late. Blair has his own agenda. Nothing to do with the interests of Britain.
Norman Hall, Norwich
For once I agree with Tony Blair. If immigrants do not like our way of life then let them go back to where they originated. As for British citizens who are intent on doing away with our democracy then surely they can be held as traitors? There used to be the death penalty for any one who betrayed the country!
Liz Wright, Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales
What democratic freedoms are actually under threat? I can't remember reading anywhere that the ability to preach and incite hatred was a basic human right. And before someone cites freedom of speech - no right comes without responsibilities.
The most fundamental civil liberty is the right to not be killed and Blair's proposals are small steps toward protecting that right with minimal intrusion into other rights. I am baffled by those who oppose such common-sense measures.
Brian , Kansas City, USA
Your website reports that "people would be refused asylum if they had been involved in terrorism." If this represents a policy shift, surely the Home Secretary, if not Mr Blair, should resign?
As a British Muslim, born and bred here, I have to say it's about time! I'm sick to death of extremism. Islam means peace, therefore these people are not "Islamists" are they? They are terrorists or extremists at best. Yes the measures will help, but they must be applied retrospectively too, all known intelligence must be used to find people now and monitor them if not deport them. I fear that some terrorists and would-be terrorists may now go underground even more so than before to evade the authorities. Muslims and non-Muslims stand shoulder to shoulder, we are effectively at war, and there is a common enemy - the terrorists and their supporters.
K, Kent, UK
It's about time this legislation was brought in, he should have done this 8 years ago when elected. I support it, but it's too little too late I fear.
I don't see how proscribing organisations and opinions will benefit us. The emphasis should be on communication and dialogue not vilification and misunderstanding. To seek to withdraw from any part of the Human Rights Act would be a travesty.
Of course, as soon as you mention banning or deporting these people from the UK the civil liberties brigade star bleating on about their civil liberties - what about our rights not to be bombed? In my view these people give up their rights as soon as they start banging on about jihad and killing people.
When extremists show no mercy why should we? All these individuals who have been "brainwashed" have been in this country for a while, benefiting from all the wonderful services Britain has to offer. It's about time we took drastic measures to protect our citizens. Those who choose to perpetrate violence and foment hatred need to be dealt with in a harsh manner. And sorry but civil liberties are farcical when these treacherous individuals wish to disrupt life itself.
Daryl, Herts, UK
This will play well with Sun and Mail readers, I'm sure. But will it make us safer from terrorism, or just remove a few more hard-won democratic freedoms? The latter, I'd say.
Patrick Mahon, Aylesbury, UK
The thin edge of the wedge: Will it be a crime in the US someday to access a BBC news website? Al Jazeera? Radio Netherlands? What if one accidentally or mistakenly visits a banned URL? Will all internet use be under surveillance at all times? Sounds like a great way to full employment- everybody spying on their neighbour. Of course, we will all be safe, then!
Robert Steinhilber, phoenix AZ USA
Given that the UK is under attack, this action seems so obvious that it makes one wonder why anyone would object. The number of potential terrorists is probably quite small and manageable at this time ? why let the number grow?
Dean, Burnsville, MN USA
In the same way that banning teenagers wearing hoods from stores does not solve the problem of crime I do not think that these solutions will work. It is a band aid solution to a much deeper problem.
Mandy, Toronto, Canada
Hear, hear. Couldn't agree more. Wish we would take the same stance here in the USA. Come in of your own free will, learn the language, participate in positive events not destructive ones.
Richard Prescott, Gaithersburg, USA
This is a pointless gesture. If you deport these people they will just turn up again on the internet. The only way to end terrorism is to tackle the root causes, and that means taking a long hard look at Western foreign policy.
David B, London, UK
For David B: If these people cared about the West's foreign policies they would know that in free and civilised countries they can use political means to address their grievances. They are fuelled by hate through religious and intellectual oppression and will set on any excuse to maim and kill. If it's not foreign policy irking them then it will be fast food or fashion. Get rid of them.
Craig H, London, UK
They're not enough and they're far too late! However, they're better than nothing!
Lawrence, Sheffield, UK
This is scary stuff! In an effort to eradicate terrorism, Blair is turning Britain into a police state! I could be branded a terrorist if I belong to a certain political party, attend a certain place of worship, or read a certain book! All these laws against terror, We still do not have a definition of the word terrorism, but we know it will last for generations. A carte blanche for the government to do as it wills.
Ibrahim, London, UK
It is a welcoming wise decision and so long waited for. As a Muslim, I think what happened in London recently has tainted Islam in this country. True Muslims would understand Blair's security plans. We should not allow dirty bunch of terrorists tear the society apart. Let's clean it together. Blair, go for it, we are right behind you.
Abdur Razag, Dartford, UK
Several years too late, but I suppose we should be grateful that the government has grown a spine at last. How often did we hear the words "Finsbury Park Mosque" in the headlines and wonder why the government never closed it down?
Kevin Bennett, Newton Abbot, UK
I agree with Blair. To reiterate; Any person who does not agree with the British way of life and hates it people so much that they are prepared to maim and kill them should be deported without question. I would even extend that notion to the British born extremists. If you don't like it then leave!
Deborah Ese, London
The French have exactly the right attitude to this sort of thing. Anyone stirring up hatred in this fashion in France is deported immediately. We should adopt the same attitude to indoctrination and proselytisation at all levels, especially regarding the young.
Keith, London, UK
I understand the need to crack down on groups that encourage hatred and violence as a way to solve problems. But I am not sure if deportation of people that invoke violence resolves the issue. Would it not be wiser to have these types of people close and monitor them rather then send to a place where they can continue to preach hatred and practice violence? Doesn't the saying go: Keep your friend close and you enemies closer. Deportation just sweeps the problem under the rug and forces countries with fewer resources to deal with such problems.
Greg Zucca, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
What nonsense! Deporting people for reading websites? Criminalising a Muslim organisation that has a 50 year history of non-violence in the face of severe torture in Muslim lands? Totalitarian methods of suppression to silence dissent will not achieve any objective.
Mozammul Ahmed, Manchester, UK
With the internet and global communications as they are, those who encourage or advocate terrorism can do so from anywhere in the world to an audience anywhere in the world. May it not be such a bad idea to allow these undesirables to remain on British soil where our intelligence agencies can keep a close eye on their activities??
Kevin, Hatfield, UK
I am a Brit, living in Prague and feel sorry for my fellow citizens back there who have to live with the fear of terrorism every day now in all our major cities. It is about time we stopped our over-generous hospitality, stop worrying about what other countries or parties think, and stop worrying about who we offend in making our country safe for our people. About time but well done Mr Blair.
Adam Riley, Prague, Czech Republic
This is welcoming news, though let me say as a Muslim, let this not be signal to bigots and racists to do as they please and punish Muslims for the actions of those who are terrorists
Amir Mashkoor, London
The government have been too weak on these issues for years and we are now suffering the consequences. Talking tough is easy, the public want action to ensure their safety.
Neil Plested, UK
About time! I fully applaud the government for this latest initiative - assuming it will come to fruition - but why has it taken so long for Mr Blair's government to realise what everyone else in the country, human rights fanatics aside, has been saying for years? I'm all in favour of fairness and equality, but there comes a point when you have to put your foot down and say 'no more' - and that point should have been reached years ago, not today.
Baz, Luton, UK
"The public mood is shifting"! The public mood has been the same for a long time, it's just been ignored.
Ian, London, UK
What will happen to our home grown peddlers of hate? Where do they go?
I will believe it when I see it. Clever lawyers will already be working out ways to defend these terrorists threatened with deportation in order to line their own pockets and in the process endanger the rest of us.
Ian Muttram, uk
And about time too! We should also follow the French lead and remove British citizenship from naturalised aliens and send them back with their families to their country of origin. If they don't like our way of life - they should be removed.
Ken Hoad, Basildon Essex
Cheering news. I do not understand how we managed to have these people invade our lives for so long without action from our government. Let's hope its not all talk.
Tony Blair is 100% correct. Most Muslims are peace loving people who we openly welcome. However our hospitality has been abused so we need to take action to safeguard our citizens. Muslims are our fellow brothers and sister whom we respect.
Lucinda Ball, London, UK
Too little too late. This should have been done years ago, and the law of incitement applied to these hateful people rather than the pandering and political correctness of the Guardian-New Labour establishment. I like many people feel very very angry about the woeful inaction of the government
Mike, Brighton, UK
I think the plans go some way to addressing some of the issues. When you see people making vitriolic comments, praising and encouraging suicide bombings then you have to ask the questions of why do we let these people in to spout this bile? However, there are also many questions raised by this - what do you do with British citizens who do the same?
Grant W, London
About time too! Strip them of any acquired UK citizenship in the process.
Paul B, Oxford
Anyone who encourages terrorism anywhere should either be banned from entering the UK or, if inside, deported or safely locked away. It is not good enough to condemn terrorism that affects only the western powers.
Why doesn't this government operate a hot air balloon company? They certainly spout enough hot air, which everyone knows will amount to nothing.
This should have been done years ago. Police stood watching outside in the street at Finsbury as Abu Hamza stirred up hatred. He should have been arrested immediately as he was openly breaking the law. He wasn't, and now look at what a mess we are in. We have become a weak country led by weak people always jumping to action after the event.
Neil, Colchester, UK
Typical of this government... totally reactive rather than pro-active. This should have been done years ago when it was obvious that people were coming to this country to preach hatred and terror. No other country in the world would have waited so long to act against these people.
We ought to do as the French are doing revoke citizenship and deport these troublemakers - for good.