I don't want my human rights torn up - letting terrorism win
Discussion
"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.
"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.
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".
Given Germany, for example, removes the citizenship of second generation immigrants who have been convicted of certain offences, it may be more about us amending our laws than a problem with European Human Rights legislation.
All she's done for the past week and a bit is talk herself out of my vote! All the recent incidents its been mentioned that the perps weren't just known but were in fact reported to the authorities by communities and families. After 7/7 there was lots of talk that people shouldn't stay silent, communities and families should step forward etc etc, well they have and nothing was done. Lack of intelligence wasn't the issue, at no point were human rights an issue, resources were what was needed and they were lacking. Were the police ready to pounce if only they didn't have pesky human rights? No. She may as well be promising to fix the problem by legalising drugs, the two aren't connected at all in the recent cases.
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.
loafer123 said:
The debate is presumably
Do we want the word presumably involved in such a debate?Did anyone not see this coming when she called the GE? She is (shamefully) just using these attrocities for opportunism.
Do we need to tear it up? Did the authtorities not have emough powers to stop terror attacks being carried out by people already on their watch list?
Do we want her to go unchecked for the next 5 years away from scrutiny of the one institution that could have protected us from an authoritarian government? Do we really want one party rule with no meaningful opposition?
Do we really want the prime minister that wants a surveillance state, the same prime minister who ordered the army on to the streets, to tear up human rights legislation now, before a possible new 5 year term?
MDMetal said:
All she's done for the past week and a bit is talk herself out of my vote! All the recent incidents its been mentioned that the perps weren't just known but were in fact reported to the authorities by communities and families. After 7/7 there was lots of talk that people shouldn't stay silent, communities and families should step forward etc etc, well they have and nothing was done. Lack of intelligence wasn't the issue, at no point were human rights an issue, resources were what was needed and they were lacking. Were the police ready to pounce if only they didn't have pesky human rights? No. She may as well be promising to fix the problem by legalising drugs, the two aren't connected at all in the recent cases.
B..b.b.but, the internet!menousername said:
Do we want the word presumably involved in such a debate?
Did anyone not see this coming when she called the GE? She is (shamefully) just using these attrocities for opportunism.
Do we need to tear it up? Did the authtorities not have emough powers to stop terror attacks being carried out by people already on their watch list?
Do we want her to go unchecked for the next 5 years away from scrutiny of the one institution that could have protected us from an authoritarian government? Do we really want one party rule with no meaningful opposition?
Do we really want the prime minister that wants a surveillance state, the same prime minister who ordered the army on to the streets, to tear up human rights legislation now, before a possible new 5 year term?
Oh yes of course. It's just like the Falklands isn't it, which Comrade Corbyn described at the time as a "Tory plot". No doubt Mrs May set up all these attacks to discredit JC.Did anyone not see this coming when she called the GE? She is (shamefully) just using these attrocities for opportunism.
Do we need to tear it up? Did the authtorities not have emough powers to stop terror attacks being carried out by people already on their watch list?
Do we want her to go unchecked for the next 5 years away from scrutiny of the one institution that could have protected us from an authoritarian government? Do we really want one party rule with no meaningful opposition?
Do we really want the prime minister that wants a surveillance state, the same prime minister who ordered the army on to the streets, to tear up human rights legislation now, before a possible new 5 year term?
Bacofoil makes good hats I understand. Other tinfoil brands are available.
Comrade Steptoe said:
Oh yes of course. It's just like the Falklands isn't it, which Comrade Corbyn described at the time as a "Tory plot". No doubt Mrs May set up all these attacks to discredit JC.
Bacofoil makes good hats I understand. Other tinfoil brands are available.
Ignorance does not always lead to blissBacofoil makes good hats I understand. Other tinfoil brands are available.
They have sufficient powers to deal with these issues. As has been mentioned by others, nearly all perpetrators were known / reported.
MDMetal said:
All she's done for the past week and a bit is talk herself out of my vote! All the recent incidents its been mentioned that the perps weren't just known but were in fact reported to the authorities by communities and families. After 7/7 there was lots of talk that people shouldn't stay silent, communities and families should step forward etc etc, well they have and nothing was done. Lack of intelligence wasn't the issue, at no point were human rights an issue, resources were what was needed and they were lacking. Were the police ready to pounce if only they didn't have pesky human rights? No. She may as well be promising to fix the problem by legalising drugs, the two aren't connected at all in the recent cases.
You mean like a ring of ANPR cameras around Birmingham to monitor their movements, it sounds like a good idea perhaps we should try it.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...
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.
Even with reports their "rights" will prevent any action by the police until they kill some kids....They have sufficient powers to deal with these issues. As has been mentioned by others, nearly all perpetrators were known / reported.
It needs doing...
PoleDriver said:
So we have two choices then...
Restrict the human rights of suspected extremists.
Or.
Tolerate a certain level of murders and maimings of innocent people on our streets.
Does that about sum it up?
If so, how many murders is acceptable per year to protect the freedom of the extremists?
Murders by third world immigrants and children of them are acceptable Restrict the human rights of suspected extremists.
Or.
Tolerate a certain level of murders and maimings of innocent people on our streets.
Does that about sum it up?
If so, how many murders is acceptable per year to protect the freedom of the extremists?
This proves you are not racist if you accept it. You can then poor scorn on people who want it to stop from your high horse.
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...
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.
My feeling is that the Human Rights act has been twisted by lawyers to protect people who should have been dealt with.
There are so many examples, convicted murderers from aboard, knock out a kid here and we cannot deport.
Endless appeals before deportation, family life before those of the victims.
The list goes on and on. I have no issue with her wishes and I suspect not that many of the population will be bothered if it allows us to deal with terror better.
We didn't have issues before this law cam out and for certain other EU countries deal with deportation a damm sight better than we do. France rounded up Romanian Gypsies and stuck them on a plane back home, they had the right to be there but they did what was needed.
Italy has just deported publically a huge number of young men who were not refugees, no fuss just get on with it.
Germany now getting on with it but we let these people hide behind a badly written and interpreted law and even fund their defence. We should have done this years ago and just maybe we would not be in the mess we are in.
There are so many examples, convicted murderers from aboard, knock out a kid here and we cannot deport.
Endless appeals before deportation, family life before those of the victims.
The list goes on and on. I have no issue with her wishes and I suspect not that many of the population will be bothered if it allows us to deal with terror better.
We didn't have issues before this law cam out and for certain other EU countries deal with deportation a damm sight better than we do. France rounded up Romanian Gypsies and stuck them on a plane back home, they had the right to be there but they did what was needed.
Italy has just deported publically a huge number of young men who were not refugees, no fuss just get on with it.
Germany now getting on with it but we let these people hide behind a badly written and interpreted law and even fund their defence. We should have done this years ago and just maybe we would not be in the mess we are in.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff