I don't want my human rights torn up - letting terrorism win

[Comrade Steptoe]

TooMany2cvs said:

Can you clarify which of us you are accusing of lying?

My post is simple fact.
Steptoe's isn't actually inaccurate, it's just a very misleading spin.

I'd much rather have TooMany2cvs in the country than TooManyHandwringingLiberals.

Which we have now, and which has resulted in the madness where convicted rapists and terrorists are allowed to stay in the UK, because we are more worried about the possibility of them being killed or tortured by their fellow countrymen than we are about protecting our own citizens.

[Sheets Tabuer]

Why is it the only thing the Tories ever suggest is removing people rights?

How about fk off, properly fund the security services enforce the laws you have and if there is a problem with a specific law then look at that one.

Do not remove the rights of 60m people because a retard with a beard got a bit stabby

[Jonesy23]

You mean rights without responsibilities?

Or balancing the rights of an individual against their impact on the rights of other people?

Some of the basic concepts have been stretched way beyond the original intent, say the 'right to a family life' one where all sorts of tenuous stuff has ended up being claimed even where the claimant was taking no responsible part in any sort of 'family'.

I'm also pretty sure there were all sorts of balancing clauses that seem to have been ignored over the years.

[MDMetal]

Jordan210 said:

What iv never understood with human rights. Is when you commit a crime that effects someone else's human rights you don't lose yours.

Say a murderer pleads human rights not to be deported after killing someone. Why should they have the right to anything after having no disregards for the victims rights.

It's not even worth discussing as it's not the issue, the issue is the athorities didn't have the resources to follw up these individuals, they have all the powers they need but for whatever reason these people weren't high enough up the list to face more scrutiny, the debate should be about if we need either more resources (so we can look at more people on the list) or how we can better rank people on the list to ensure we get the right ones to the top. Deporting people people wouldn't have solved anything and so far no department has said the issue here was HR.

We should debate how HR is enforced absolutly but it's not an election issue.

[Comrade Steptoe]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Why is it the only thing the Tories ever suggest is removing people rights?

How about fk off, properly fund the security services enforce the laws you have and if there is a problem with a specific law then look at that one.

Do not remove the rights of 60m people because a retard with a beard got a bit stabby

Yeah ! Let's vote for Jjerwermy, who has voted against every piece of anti-terror legislation ever introduced. That'll keep us safe.

[Shakermaker]

Jordan210 said:

What iv never understood with human rights. Is when you commit a crime that effects someone else's human rights you don't lose yours.

Say a murderer pleads human rights not to be deported after killing someone. Why should they have the right to anything after having no disregards for the victims rights.

The criminals rights always seam more important than the victims.

If he gets deported, is that punishment?

"Oh yeah, we know he killed your wife, so we're sending him back to his home country where he won't face any jail time or punishment"

[TooMany2cvs]

MDMetal said:

It's not even worth discussing as it's not the issue, the issue is the athorities didn't have the resources to follw up these individuals, they have all the powers they need but for whatever reason these people weren't high enough up the list to face more scrutiny, the debate should be about if we need either more resources (so we can look at more people on the list) or how we can better rank people on the list to ensure we get the right ones to the top. Deporting people people wouldn't have solved anything and so far no department has said the issue here was HR.

<nods>

MDMetal said:

We should debate how HR is enforced absolutly but it's not an election issue.

...while remembering that the actual British courts who judge breaches of the ECHR, as allowed by the HRA, are the EXACT SAME COURTS that would judge breaches of some new "British bill of rights". So the issue MUST be the wording of the convention, right?

So, yet again...
Here is the actual ECHR... Remember, the UK has been a signatory to this since basically writing it single-handed in the early 1950s...
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.p...

Will somebody who is staunchly against it, PLEASE go through it and point out the bits that cause you a problem, and outline what you'd rather it said?

[TooMany2cvs]

Shakermaker said:

Jordan210 said:

What iv never understood with human rights. Is when you commit a crime that effects someone else's human rights you don't lose yours.

Say a murderer pleads human rights not to be deported after killing someone. Why should they have the right to anything after having no disregards for the victims rights.

The criminals rights always seam more important than the victims.

If he gets deported, is that punishment?

"Oh yeah, we know he killed your wife, so we're sending him back to his home country where he won't face any jail time or punishment"

Bearing in mind that Telegraph article a few pages back in this thread, perhaps you'd better say...
"Oh yeah, we know he killed your wife, so we're sending him back to somewhere he's said is his home country but doesn't actually have any proof of, where he won't face any jail time or punishment"

[catso]

otolith said:

look at the scope creep on Section 59.

And S 172, self-incrimination etc.

[Jordan210]

Shakermaker said:

If he gets deported, is that punishment?

"Oh yeah, we know he killed your wife, so we're sending him back to his home country where he won't face any jail time or punishment"

I meant after punishment.

[durbster]

Comrade Steptoe said:

Yeah ! Let's vote for Jjerwermy, who has voted against every piece of anti-terror legislation ever introduced. That'll keep us safe.

And how safe has that anti-terror legislation kept us so far?

We've heard this all before. Less freedom, more restrictions, give us your passwords, give us your browser history. It hasn't worked.

We've been increasing Police powers while reducing Police resources. It's completely the wrong way round. They have the powers, they just don't have the people.

There's a good common sense article about this here which is worth reading:
https://icct.nl/publication/defeating-is-ideology-...

[Kermit power]

jonnyb said:

Comrade Steptoe said:

menousername said:

Ignorance does not always lead to bliss

They have sufficient powers to deal with these issues. As has been mentioned by others, nearly all perpetrators were known / reported.

Bullst.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/725570/Somalian-r...

Did you read the article? While I have no desire to see him stay here, you can't deport someone who has a realistic prospect of being killed on their return.

Personally, this is a victory for the human rights act. I don't want to live in a country who deport people to certain death. Maybe a longer than 8 year sentence for his original crime would have been a better option.

Where do you draw the line then? There's nothing in the article from what I could see to suggest he was at any individual risk. He was allowed to remain because he was part of an ethnic minority in Mogadishu.

If we send him back to Somalia, he may suffer some harm. If we let him stay here, he may attack and rape more British women.

How many more British women would he need to rape before you decide that maybe he should be removed?

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[markcoznottz]

France seems to deport people ok. It's only us that fks about as usual. To suggest that every one of these individuals will face torture if deported home is another example of the liberal establishment basically having a bit of a play with the electorate, with inevitable results.

[Shakermaker]

Jordan210 said:

I meant after punishment.

Fair enough - I could agree that might be more feasible. Many people just go ahead and suggest that we don't even bother locking them up and "waste tax payers money" on doing so and just send them home, blissfully unaware of how expensive that is in itself.

[TooMany2cvs]

Kermit power said:

If we let him stay here, he may attack and rape more British women.

Is he any more or less likely to do that than any other rapist released from prison at the end of their sentence? Should the sentence for rape (and other offences) include transportation to some penal colony...?

Kermit power said:

How many more British women would he need to rape before you decide that maybe he should be removed?

If he commits any other offence, he should be tried and sentenced again, just like anybody else. Obviously.

Perhaps we should just go back a step, if you're so focussed on this particular case. Rape carries a maximum sentence of life. How come he was only sentenced to nine years for two rapes and two assaults with intent to rape, all at knife point?

[Comrade Steptoe]

Kermit power said:

Where do you draw the line then? There's nothing in the article from what I could see to suggest he was at any individual risk. He was allowed to remain because he was part of an ethnic minority in Mogadishu.

If we send him back to Somalia, he may suffer some harm. If we let him stay here, he may attack and rape more British women.

How many more British women would he need to rape before you decide that maybe he should be removed?

They would prefer them to be able to stay here and rape an unlimited amount of British women.

Until maybe it's there own wife or daughter who gets raped.

[MDMetal]

Comrade Steptoe said:

Kermit power said:

Where do you draw the line then? There's nothing in the article from what I could see to suggest he was at any individual risk. He was allowed to remain because he was part of an ethnic minority in Mogadishu.

If we send him back to Somalia, he may suffer some harm. If we let him stay here, he may attack and rape more British women.

How many more British women would he need to rape before you decide that maybe he should be removed?

They would prefer them to be able to stay here and rape an unlimited amount of British women.

Until maybe it's there own wife or daughter who gets raped.

Stupid, most rapists aren't foreign so how does that really help statistics wise? If someone you know got raped would you be hoping they were foreign so we could deport them?

[Comrade Steptoe]

TooMany2cvs said:

...while remembering that the actual British courts who judge breaches of the ECHR, as allowed by the HRA, are the EXACT SAME COURTS that would judge breaches of some new "British bill of rights". So the issue MUST be the wording of the convention, right?

So, yet again...
Here is the actual ECHR... Remember, the UK has been a signatory to this since basically writing it single-handed in the early 1950s...
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.p...

Will somebody who is staunchly against it, PLEASE go through it and point out the bits that cause you a problem, and outline what you'd rather it said?

The clue's in your own post. Written in the "early 1950s". It was designed to address a post WW2 Soviet threat to the west and democracy. It was never envisaged that it would be abused and misused by human rights lawyers and a liberal judiciary to protect foreign terrorists and rapists.

The ECHR is thoroughly discredited and no longer fit for purpose. It needs to be scrapped, along with it's snowflake handwringing apologists.

[MDMetal]

markcoznottz said:

France seems to deport people ok. It's only us that fks about as usual. To suggest that every one of these individuals will face torture if deported home is another example of the liberal establishment basically having a bit of a play with the electorate, with inevitable results.

If they deport so many people why are there still terror attacks? Debate deporting people after a crime as much as you want it's not a solution for PREVENTION!