It’s a legitimate term used by the security services, look it up rather than trying to be righteous know it all!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Attack in Streatham, South London.
- Thread starter melias shoes
- Start date
It’s a legitimate term used by the security services, look it up rather than trying to be righteous know it all!
hart's shirt
Well-known member
Within the vernacular of counter-terrorism agents and police officers, a cleanskin is an undercover operative whose identity is not known to the forces he or she is tasked to infiltrate. This is usually because such an agent has not conducted any prior undercover activity.
The phrase entered wide currency with a slightly different meaning in the United Kingdom following the London bombings of 7 July 2005. The four bombers involved in those bombings were reported in the press to be "cleanskins", according to police sources, meaning that their profiles did not fit the expected profile of bombers.
Terrorist groups, smugglers, and others performing secretive activities prefer to subvert cleanskins as there is less chance that they will arouse suspicion. For example, a person with previous convictions for importing drugs is more likely to be detained than a person never convicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanskin_(security)
The phrase entered wide currency with a slightly different meaning in the United Kingdom following the London bombings of 7 July 2005. The four bombers involved in those bombings were reported in the press to be "cleanskins", according to police sources, meaning that their profiles did not fit the expected profile of bombers.
Terrorist groups, smugglers, and others performing secretive activities prefer to subvert cleanskins as there is less chance that they will arouse suspicion. For example, a person with previous convictions for importing drugs is more likely to be detained than a person never convicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanskin_(security)
“cleanskins", according to police sources, meaning that their profiles did not fit the expected profile of bombers
In the US they're comfortably the most common cause of domestic terrorism. Wouldn't be surprised if the same was true here within a few years.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Priti Patel shows how thick she is by saying on TV earlier there were counter terrorism offences yesterday and talked of counter terrorist offenders, seems like she can't even remember Dom's script without making a fool of herself
Razzoo
Well-known member
Sorry that's just a poorly constructed strawman.
Not really. Right wing extremism is a very real thing now and on the rise, so it's logical that when you hear of a terrorist attack somewhere in the Western world, you could think it might be right wing extremism. There are a number of examples in the UK in the last few years that I'd be happy to list. It's really not that rare a thing, as much as we might all want it to be.
There are a lot of thick racist idiots out there who have been given all sorts of fuel by politicians and the press in recent years.
daveinplzen
New member
- Aug 31, 2018
- 2,846
find it with the context
Neither do you but I suppose that is subject to who you mean by we.
Sometimes you wonder why they bothered making that excellent series, Spooks, which refers to cleanskins (and, no, as noted above, it is not a racist term, FFS).
Actually, all of the plotlines of terrorist activity, islamic or neonazi, have been played out in that series, before real events happened.
Indeed, I am surprised that folk haven't started blaming the television for terrorism.
You would think, however, that the government might have worked out that terrorism is a thing now, and that letting out convicted terrorists with their whispy bears and dead eyes is probably a bad thing. How long have they been in power? Ten years, isn't it?
Meanwhile, nobody has forwarded the explanation why all this is the fault of London's mayor yet, as suggested in a snide post yeaterday. Have the gammon decided to park that one?
Till next time I would imagine. 
Razzoo
Well-known member
Ok, if extreme right terrorism is a growing and very real threat, what do you think are all the reasons for this? Barring the aforementioned Press, Politicians and Brexit. Or is that it?
Eh? The reasons for it are a completely different discussion? Way to change the goalposts.
I think it's pretty bloody obvious if you spend more than 5 minutes with a copy of The Daily Mail or similar. I mean we have a Prime Minister who is certainly at least a bit racist?! Hardly a surprise is it?
Further, I would suggest it's people who (rightly) feel angry and disenfranchised, being left behind by growing wealth inequality, then being pointed towards a scapegoat as the thing to focus all of their anger and hatred on, to channel all the frustrations at how their lives haven't worked out how they hoped upon.
Have you not noticed there's always a thing for the right wing to be told to rally against, or fear? Going back in time a bit...
Jews
Blacks
Poles
Muslims
The EU - hands up who gave a flying **** either way about the EU over 5 years ago (the vast, vast majority didn't, until they were told to hate them).
It'll be something different again in a few years. Same as it ever was.
No one in my family has stabbed innocent people … or any people for that matter.
RossyG
Well-known member
- Dec 20, 2014
- 2,630
Here’s a list of terrorist incidents in the U.K.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain
From just the last five years...
Number of fatalities due to Muslim terrorists - 36
Number of fatalities due to far right terrorists - 2
I can’t see that proportion changing anytime soon.
Right wing extremism exists without doubt. But the number of terrorist attacks that have actually been carried out by right wing extremists pales into insignificance when compared to those supposedly acting in Allah’s name.
Is there a 'terrorist organization of the year' competition now?
If so, let's get the criteria set shall we?
Number of attacks, or number of actual dead? That Brevic chap cancells out a lot of our resident beardy twerps.
Do you get extra points for picking on softer versus harder targets? A policeman or a kiddy?
I really think we need to debate this.
Hand on.....wait!
No, no we don't. FFS.
Razzoo
Well-known member
Right, but I do feel you are deliberately avoiding the elephant in the room.
Clean skin is a legit term. Nothing to do with skin colour, it’s a term used to describe someone that has no history of activity and nobody has a reason to suspect them. It was more commonly used to refer to undercover agents who had never had their cover blown. The etymology, of your interested (as I am) comes from when ships sails used to be made from animal hide and merchant or any non combative vessel with no affiliation to any warring nation had sails with no markings on them so they could sail through international waters unhindered. Or so I believe, etymology is vague at best for a lot of these things but it makes sense.
Either way, it doesn’t refer to colour of skin and is used regularly in modern parlance to refer to terrorists or undercover officers that give no indication of previous activity or future intent.
Who knew!!!