has the woman no idea about peoples feelings
Discussion
I'm not a fan of the smiling one, but I'm afraid I totally agree with her on this.
We can not call ourselves a civilised nation unless everyone is treated fairly by the courts, regardless of what they are accused of. Remember that the premise of our legal system is innocence until guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
As soon as you start to erode that, you are on a slippery slope to corruption and miscarriage of justice, as can be seen in what the US are doing - look up the case of Jose Padilla.
On another note, why do we need additional laws for this? Surely it is already legal to kill people, conspire to do so, and be an accomplice in such activity. It strikes me as political posturing, as a result of a perceived need to be seen to be doing something.
We can not call ourselves a civilised nation unless everyone is treated fairly by the courts, regardless of what they are accused of. Remember that the premise of our legal system is innocence until guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
As soon as you start to erode that, you are on a slippery slope to corruption and miscarriage of justice, as can be seen in what the US are doing - look up the case of Jose Padilla.
On another note, why do we need additional laws for this? Surely it is already legal to kill people, conspire to do so, and be an accomplice in such activity. It strikes me as political posturing, as a result of a perceived need to be seen to be doing something.
What is the reason for removing their "human rights" ?
I think our legal system is perfectly capable of processing terrorists and murderers without the need to torture them in the name of justice, this is the kind of idealogy the war on terror is supposed to be fighting against, isn't it ?
I think our legal system is perfectly capable of processing terrorists and murderers without the need to torture them in the name of justice, this is the kind of idealogy the war on terror is supposed to be fighting against, isn't it ?
I don't see what is so offensive about her comments?
Though I dislike the Blairs, the stuff she said doesn't cheapen the deaths, hurt the subsequent investigations or attack the police. She's dead right that any response to the terrorists has to be measured, lawful and civilised.
Patrick Mercer seems to have spotted a chance to get some column inches by feigning offense, but it's a pretty poor excuse.
Though I dislike the Blairs, the stuff she said doesn't cheapen the deaths, hurt the subsequent investigations or attack the police. She's dead right that any response to the terrorists has to be measured, lawful and civilised.
Patrick Mercer seems to have spotted a chance to get some column inches by feigning offense, but it's a pretty poor excuse.
Why is terrorism being treated so differently to any other crime? Is blowing up 20 people for political reasons any different to blowing up 20 people while robbing a bank? I want to see these terrorists stopped and punished, but I'm distinctly unhappy with the way people's rights as a citizen are being taken away on the basis they are accused of being a terrorist. What is a terrorist? If I plant a bomb I'm probably a terrorist. If I make a bomb I'm probably a terrorist. If I talk about making a bomb I might be a terrorist. If I vocally and publically oppose something does that mean I might be a terrorist? How about if I simply fail to support something the government is trying to do? Seems to me it is a grey scale (just as with any form of criminal activity) and to pluck people out of the protection of the legal system just because you have stuck the label of terrorist on them seems very dangerous to me.
Tank Slapper said:
I'm not a fan of the smiling one, but I'm afraid I totally agree with her on this.
We can not call ourselves a civilised nation unless everyone is treated fairly by the courts, regardless of what they are accused of. Remember that the premise of our legal system is innocence until guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
As soon as you start to erode that, you are on a slippery slope to corruption and miscarriage of justice, as can be seen in what the US are doing - look up the case of Jose Padilla.
I'm afraid I agree as well, despite the fact I can't stand the woman.
You cannot take away someone's human rights or their right to a fair trial.
Imagine if you personally were arrested on suspicion of terrorism, you were then beaten and tortured by police to make you confess to a crime you never committed, detained indefinitely and badly treated, then given a trial in which the assumption is that you are guilty. You are then imprisoned for life. And don't tell me it doesn't happen, because it does. Mistakes are made all the time.
The way I read it, all she has said is that we should not (and legally cannot) infringe the rights of suspected terrorists. Much as I dislike the woman I too have to agree with her on this. As has been pointed out above, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty (unless the "crime" is speeding).
It is also true that we should not remove certain rights of convicted terrorists either. e.g. we should not (and will not) torture, kill or maim them while they are in custody. Other rights we should (and will) remove or restrict e.g. freedom of movement.
It is also true that we should not remove certain rights of convicted terrorists either. e.g. we should not (and will not) torture, kill or maim them while they are in custody. Other rights we should (and will) remove or restrict e.g. freedom of movement.
4WD said:
What about my human rights? I have a right to go to work without being murdered. Why are our borders STILL wide open?! The army should be in control of our national security, not some spinless politicians FFS.
But that's precisely my point. You and everyone else have the same human rights.
As to the comment about borders being wide open, the 7/7 bombers were British citizens.
)4WD said:
What about my human rights? I have a right to go to work without being murdered. Why are our borders STILL wide open?! The army should be in control of our national security, not some spinless politicians FFS.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the people who carried out these attacks were British citizens. This has nothing to do with immigration, legal or otherwise.
You are right. You do have the right to go to work without being murdered. It is already illegal, but it didn't seem to make much difference.
The sad reality is that if someone is fanatical to the extreme that they are willing to kill themselves and others in this way, it isn't going to make much difference how many laws they break when they do it.
Like it or not, but the politicians, spineless or not, must have ultimate control, as our directly elected representatives. If you are willing to live in an unaccountable police state, or dictatorship there are plenty left around the world to choose from.
No one is a "terrorist" until they've been found guilty of said offence in a court of law. Up until that time they are suspects only. Suspects are still free individuals entitled to the full array of rights as you and me.
Once they've been found guilty, the book (and evetything else) can be thrown at them. But, up 'til then..................
Once they've been found guilty, the book (and evetything else) can be thrown at them. But, up 'til then..................
Some posters here seem to think you can apply human rights to some people, but not to others.
Democracy doesn't work like that.
Our civil and human rights are what make us a generally civilised country. They have been hard won, and defended by the deaths of millions in two world wars.
We should agonise before surrendering any of them, because when we do we become less of the nation we want to be.
Human rights are easy to give up, and very difficult to then regain.
We may all have to accept some limited (hopefully temporary) restrictions for the safety of all, but we should only create any new conditions after very careful reflection and debate.
Democracy doesn't work like that.
Our civil and human rights are what make us a generally civilised country. They have been hard won, and defended by the deaths of millions in two world wars.
We should agonise before surrendering any of them, because when we do we become less of the nation we want to be.
Human rights are easy to give up, and very difficult to then regain.
We may all have to accept some limited (hopefully temporary) restrictions for the safety of all, but we should only create any new conditions after very careful reflection and debate.
silversun said:
As to the comment about borders being wide open, the 7/7 bombers were British citizens.
So, is the eductation system in this country really spinning out of control and creating psychotic misfits who believe in the destruction of all that they have been brought up with or is there some form of malevolent external force at work here, breaching the borders and boundaries of the good sense of the population of these isles?
Responses in the context of both the suspected terrorists of a certain religious persuasion and those who inhabit Downing Street can be entertained.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff