It just blows my mind to see all the different ways people will bend over backwards and then contort into a pretzel to try and blame the US for causing and perpetuating a war that Russia is exclusively culpable for…

UK district and borough councils have a homelessness prevention duty which also applies to refugees. Unfortunately said councils are also largely falling to pieces and social housing stock hasn’t met demand since Thatcher eviscerated it in the 80s.

This basically means that a bunch of them are going to end up living long-term in ‘emergency’ B&B placements due to a lack of available social housing, unless they can find private arrangements themselves.

So… was this intended as suicide by border guard? I imagine whatever his original plan is he’s going to end up regretting it.

1. It’ll be funny if Georgia also gets off the pot and indictes too.

2. Could this go in US News instead? Lemmy is broadly very US-centric already, so posting US politics here too drowns out other global stories.

Well, one context I’m already familiar with is the counter-terrorism duty in the UK. There is a program called Prevent that is designed to tackle radicalisation risk that could result in terrorism or non-violent extremism.

These programs basically work by placing a duty on certain types of organisation to report concerning behaviours that could result in radicalisation. An example would be a teacher or social worker overhearing a teenager espousing violent ideological positions that they’d been exposed to online.

This then results in a referral to the local counter-terrorism police unit, who carry out an assessment to determine the level of vulnerability and risk. Far-right ideologies including fascism can be accounted for here. Depending on the outcome, this may result in the referral being closed, or a multi-agency support plan being developed for the individual.

In that narrow band of circumstances, determining someone’s susceptibility to fascism as an extremist ideology is warranted. That’s in the context of a reactive specialist law enforcement assessment, when there is a justifiable national security interest in the prevention of terrorism.

That said, this is very different to indiscriminate profiling on a population level. If everyone in the UK was subject to mandatory fascism assessments, that would be massively intrusive and disproportionate, and an enormous infringement of civil liberties - even if the government attempted to justify it on the same national security basis described above.

In what context?

Who’d be doing the identifying, how would they be doing it, and what would they be using that information for?

‘Should’ is a question of desirability, so the above is really critically important.