I don't want my human rights torn up - letting terrorism win
Discussion
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
MDMetal said:
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?
Precisely. So when we have an opportunity to have one less on the streets after their prison sentence, why would we not want to take it?Comrade Steptoe said:
MDMetal said:
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?
Precisely. So when we have an opportunity to have one less on the streets after their prison sentence, why would we not want to take it?Comrade Steptoe said:
spaximus said:
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.
BullsThey have sufficient powers to deal with these issues. As has been mentioned by others, nearly all perpetrators were known / reported.
t.http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/725570/Somalian-r...
Perhaps if he was returned justice would at last be served. This is a perfect example of a bad law that has been twisted to protect the guilty whilst giving no protection to the public.
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.
If that Somali bloke was in genuine danger, he shouldn't have committed rape - where was the protection for his victim's human rights ? You liberals make me sick.
It actually makes me chuckle at just how sick we can make you.
jonnyb said:
I'm not the one being naive, much more educated and learned people than me and you made this decision. If you don't like it move countries to somewhere that more represents your beliefs, Saudi Arabia maybe?
It actually makes me chuckle at just how sick we can make you.
Chuckling at raped women and girls is about your level.It actually makes me chuckle at just how sick we can make you.
MDMetal said:
Lets just kill anyone whose convicted of anything then, easy problem, include speeding and traffic infractions too, if we're happy moving the line slightly why not move it alot?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just a bit stupid, rather than being deliberately obtuse.We are talking about foreign criminals, Not all criminals.
Bearing in mind we have plenty of home grown British criminals, why do we have to add to their number by importing more, and not sending them home when they abuse our hospitality?
But then I guess you view making a distinction between British crims and foreign crims is racist. In which case, there's no helping you.
Comrade Steptoe said:
MDMetal said:
Lets just kill anyone whose convicted of anything then, easy problem, include speeding and traffic infractions too, if we're happy moving the line slightly why not move it alot?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just a bit stupid, rather than being deliberately obtuse.We are talking about foreign criminals, Not all criminals.
Bearing in mind we have plenty of home grown British criminals, why do we have to add to their number by importing more, and not sending them home when they abuse our hospitality?
But then I guess you view making a distinction between British crims and foreign crims is racist. In which case, there's no helping you.
Your say your pro victims rights, so your point is the victim has a right to have the attacked deported... Why? To remove the benifits of living here? To make sure the attacker is as far from the victim as possible? If so how do you give these same rights to a victim who was raped by a national? In effect your giving more "rights" to the victims of foreign rapists than domestic? You'd actually end up with people sobbing they wished their attacker was foreign as they'd "get whats coming to them" Once your ok deporting foreigners why not deport all the nationals to some far slung s
tty island like we used to? equal treatment for all rapists? None of this seems to ensure that attackers are punished equally and harshly all it does is make you feel good about exacting some sort of revenge for a crime you weren't involved in.Comrade Steptoe said:
jonnyb said:
I'm not the one being naive, much more educated and learned people than me and you made this decision. If you don't like it move countries to somewhere that more represents your beliefs, Saudi Arabia maybe?
It actually makes me chuckle at just how sick we can make you.
Chuckling at raped women and girls is about your level.It actually makes me chuckle at just how sick we can make you.
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.
It’s difficult to reply to a post which completely misses the point. If you are found guilty of a criminal offence and sentenced to jail. You have lost a fundamental freedom. The HR acts do not change that. They just ensure you get a fair trial. It means the authorities cannot torture you or witnesses to get a evidence, it means you have the right to present a defence and question witnesses.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.
Comrade Steptoe said:
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.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?
Comrade Steptoe said:
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.
So the problem's not the legislation, but the judges and the lawyers?Comrade Steptoe said:
The ECHR is thoroughly discredited and no longer fit for purpose.
...by you. Yes, we know.Now, how about you actually read it, and tell me which bits you actually have a problem with, and what you'd replace them with?
jonnyb said:
Comrade Steptoe said:
jonnyb said:
I'm not the one being naive, much more educated and learned people than me and you made this decision. If you don't like it move countries to somewhere that more represents your beliefs, Saudi Arabia maybe?
It actually makes me chuckle at just how sick we can make you.
Chuckling at raped women and girls is about your level.It actually makes me chuckle at just how sick we can make you.
Comrade Steptoe said:
jonnyb said:
Comrade Steptoe said:
jonnyb said:
I'm not the one being naive, much more educated and learned people than me and you made this decision. If you don't like it move countries to somewhere that more represents your beliefs, Saudi Arabia maybe?
It actually makes me chuckle at just how sick we can make you.
Chuckling at raped women and girls is about your level.It actually makes me chuckle at just how sick we can make you.
footnote said:
I'm human.
I want to continue live the way we live now.
I thought we weren't going to let them win.
I thought we wouldn't change our way of life for them.
Why should all of us be made lesser?
I'm absolutely not a fan of May - and I understand where you're coming from.I want to continue live the way we live now.
I thought we weren't going to let them win.
I thought we wouldn't change our way of life for them.
Why should all of us be made lesser?
However; I don't want to 'continue to live the way we live now' if that means accepting terrorist attacks as a way of life.
I'd urge you to watch this - the documentary in which one of the recent London attackers briefly appears.
video
What really struck me is how well the jihadists understand the law and how deftly they are able to push radicalisation techniques as far as they can without being convicted of a crime.
They are very aware of their 'human rights' and are exploiting them to create violence against us.
This cannot be allowed to continue.
TooMany2cvs said:
...by you. Yes, we know.
Now, how about you actually read it, and tell me which bits you actually have a problem with, and what you'd replace them with?
I'd scrap the whole sorry, outdated mess and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Which provided no rights for convicted foreign terrorists and criminals to avoid deportation at the end of their prison sentence. Regardless of what their home country may or may not do to them.If they have tried to game the system by getting a British spouse and/or child, then if they wish to retain their "family life", they can do so in their home country.Now, how about you actually read it, and tell me which bits you actually have a problem with, and what you'd replace them with?
Comrade Steptoe said:
Chucking rather than chuckling now? You really are an intelligent chap. Do they let you out in public with a carer, or do you have to stay locked up?
Before you post posts like that you should learn the difference between 'their' and 'there'. I can see the appeal of proposed measures to someone as simple as you. Comrade Steptoe said:
TooMany2cvs said:
...by you. Yes, we know.
Now, how about you actually read it, and tell me which bits you actually have a problem with, and what you'd replace them with?
I'd scrap the whole sorry, outdated mess and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.Now, how about you actually read it, and tell me which bits you actually have a problem with, and what you'd replace them with?
Comrade Steptoe said:
Which provided no rights for convicted foreign terrorists and criminals to avoid deportation at the end of their prison sentence.
'course, the ECHR doesn't actually stop that...Comrade Steptoe said:
Regardless of what their home country may or may not do to them.
You're quite happy with arbitrary murder and torture, so long as it's of people you don't like much? Where in the legal system would you draw the line? Murder and rape are easy, but how about - say - fraud? Or driving offences?Are you similarly happy for other countries to arbitrarily kill and torture British people, or does it depend?
Comrade Steptoe said:
If they have tried to game the system by getting a British spouse and/or child, then if they wish to retain their "family life", they can do so in their home country.
You've not actually read that bit, either, have you, despite the fact it's already been quoted verbatim in this thread?Blimey, you're making Diane Abbott look well-informed.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 7th June 11:46
TooMany2cvs said:
Somalia doesn't have any kind of functioning judicial system that weighs evidence before coming to a verdict.
there is a reason for that. it is a backward sthole created entirely by the people that live there. unfortunately hand wringers from developed western countries do not seem to grasp that the way the majority of somali males are brought up means they are unlikely to fit in well with our generally law abiding western lifestyles and are likely to look upon most westerners and our laws as easy prey.this is proven by the offending rate of somali males living in the uk. the vast majority have absolutely nothing at all to offer this country.
wc98 said:
there is a reason for that. it is a backward sthole created entirely by the people that live there. unfortunately hand wringers from developed western countries do not seem to grasp that the way the majority of somali males are brought up means they are unlikely to fit in well with our generally law abiding western lifestyles and are likely to look upon most westerners and our laws as easy prey.
this is proven by the offending rate of somali males living in the uk. the vast majority have absolutely nothing at all to offer this country.
I tell you what, how about we stick to the European Convention on Human Rights in this thread, and we'll do the various United Nations conventions on refugees later?thole created entirely by the people that live there. unfortunately hand wringers from developed western countries do not seem to grasp that the way the majority of somali males are brought up means they are unlikely to fit in well with our generally law abiding western lifestyles and are likely to look upon most westerners and our laws as easy prey.this is proven by the offending rate of somali males living in the uk. the vast majority have absolutely nothing at all to offer this country.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff