I don't want my human rights torn up - letting terrorism win
Discussion
jonnyb said:
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.
So we can be a cess pit for the world then......fPersonally, 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.
k thatYes they may well have been known but that doesn't mean they were doing anything wrong or could be convicted of anything.
And the post about police numbers, I'm sorry but more police (especially PCSO's) wouldn't have made one bit of difference to preventing the 3 most recent attacks. I still think we have a very good counter terrorism record in this country. Didn't TM mention that they had foiled 5 credible attacks since the Westminster Bridge attack.
For me a big problem is letting everyone know the identities of these scum, all 3 of the London attackers are on the front page of the BBC like a fking Hall of fame for all of their terrorist fan club to admire. For the general public the names are not important and we should just sweep up the mess, open the shops and bars again and get on with it. The more media attention each dead terrorist gets the more his/her wannabes get the itch to pick up a knife out of the kitchen drawer and go off on a killing spree.
And the post about police numbers, I'm sorry but more police (especially PCSO's) wouldn't have made one bit of difference to preventing the 3 most recent attacks. I still think we have a very good counter terrorism record in this country. Didn't TM mention that they had foiled 5 credible attacks since the Westminster Bridge attack.
For me a big problem is letting everyone know the identities of these scum, all 3 of the London attackers are on the front page of the BBC like a f
king Hall of fame for all of their terrorist fan club to admire. For the general public the names are not important and we should just sweep up the mess, open the shops and bars again and get on with it. The more media attention each dead terrorist gets the more his/her wannabes get the itch to pick up a knife out of the kitchen drawer and go off on a killing spree.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.
Comrade Steptoe said:
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 afraid it's this very type of Shameless Chakrabarti / Nick Clegg / Cheri Blair liberal attitude that has contributed to where we are now. 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?
Right to family life? My arse.
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.
loafer123 said:
The debate is presumably over the rulings that meant we took years to deport people like Abu Qatarda because of his "right to a family life".
Which isn't actually even remotely true...The whole 12 year period between him first being arrested in the UK, after being found guilty in Jordan in absentia, and finally agreeing to be extradited? It was ONE YEAR between the European Court of Human Rights getting involved and him actually going. That's all. And they agreed with existing UK House of Lords and Appeal Court judgements... The question was over whether evidence obtained under torture was acceptable, or whether it breached article 6 - the right to a fair trial. Finally, the Jordanians agreed not to use the torture evidence... and he went voluntarily. Whereupon he was promptly found NOT GUILTY and released... Most of that time, he was inside in the UK - including a couple of years detained without trial or charge... When he wasn't, he was mostly under 22 hour, no-phone, no-internet curfew.
spaximus said:
My feeling is that the Human Rights act has been twisted by lawyers to protect people who should have been dealt with.
We didn't have issues before this law cam out
The Human Rights Act 1998 does one thing, and one thing only - it allows UK courts to prosecute breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK signed up to 1953 (having basically written it). UK courts. The exact same UK courts as would prosecute breaches of some "British Bill of Rights"...We didn't have issues before this law cam out
The truth of what the convention allows and does not allow...
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.p...
Just look through that, and tell me which bits you disagree with...
jonnyb said:
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.
He placed several women in the position where they thought they were going to die.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.
Now it's "Don't send me home I might be killed"
Tough titties. If he'd known he would be deported, and his own life put in danger, perhaps he wouldn't have threatened the lives of the women.
Stickyfinger said:
What a piss boilerDeport them. I don't care what happens to them
karona said:
He placed several women in the position where they thought they were going to die.
Now it's "Don't send me home I might be killed"
Tough titties. If he'd known he would be deported, and his own life put in danger, perhaps he wouldn't have threatened the lives of the women.
Precisely. Now it's "Don't send me home I might be killed"
Tough titties. If he'd known he would be deported, and his own life put in danger, perhaps he wouldn't have threatened the lives of the women.
But I'm sure his victims are so pleased with his "victory for human rights".
I wonder how these liberals would feel if their own daughter was raped.
Comrade Steptoe said:
Right to family life? My arse.
European Convention on Human Rights said:
ARTICLE 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
That's it. All of it. Every single last word of it. What's wrong with that?1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Comrade Steptoe said:
The father of the Manchester bomber was granted asylum as he was supposedly in fear of his life in Libya, then he funnily enough spent a lot of time travelling to....Libya.
The family came here in the 1990s, and returned voluntarily to Libya in 2011 after Gadaffi's overthrow. The bomber was born here, a British national, and was still at school when he chose to remain here in 2011.Comrade Steptoe said:
If that Somali bloke was in genuine danger, he shouldn't have committed rape - where was the protection for his victim's human rights?
That's not what human rights legislation is for... The victim of something like a rape is protected by criminal law - which is why the rapist is in prison, convicted of rape, serving his sentence in exactly the same way as if he was British. Human rights legislation protects people (all people, including criminals) from governments. In that case, he was protected from being returned to a lawless country where he would almost certainly be tortured and murdered. You might think that there's no problem in the UK government being complicit in that - excuse me if I disagree...jonnyb said:
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.
To paraphrase, if you can't do the execution, don't do the terrorist c**t thing. Sure, we shouldn't deport someone who comes here saying, for example, "I'm gay and they'll throw me off a car park if I return". But if that person then goes on to plan an attack where he's going to bomb a huge event full of young people here in the UK, then sorry but here's your plane ticket, you put yourself back on offer.Anyone got an example of when someone has fought to remain has then gone in to commit a crime? Everton gets wobbly about human rights when we try and deport someone, that's usually after the crime has been committed, so how would that actually help the problem? Also what suicide bomber is worried about deportation?!
21TonyK said:
"I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries.
"And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
"And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it."
Vote winner for me.
My bold"And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
"And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it."
Vote winner for me.
Teresa May thinks we should be able to lock up people who are not criminals because they might do something.
Vote loser
DAVEVO9 said:
Stickyfinger said:
What a piss boilerDeport them. I don't care what happens to them
Most of them are already in jail here, having been convicted and sentenced.
Then there's a couple where deportation is possible, but for one minor detail - their real identities and nationalities are UNKNOWN. That's not human rights. That's basic international law. You cannot deport somebody except to their country of nationality. If you can't prove that, what then? You'd have halfwits and chancers getting arrested all round the world, saying "Oooh, I'm British, y'know, but I've lost my passport...", and being deported here...
It's sensationalised knee-jerk b
ks playing to the gullible.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff