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

[Derek Smith]

andy-xr said:

I'm not entirely convinced that the deportation side of human rights laws is the main focus here.

After Theresa May's past efforts as Home Secretary, to me it's going to be about mass surveillance and encryption standards and that'll be slipped in somewhere in a random paragraph.

It's a shame there's nothing in the HRA about security of correspondence.

[TooMany2cvs]

Wobbegong said:

Is the plan to take away certain human rights for everyone or just those of criminals/terrorists/those with links to terrorism?

Without evidence and trials, how do you know who's who?

[TooMany2cvs]

Derek Smith said:

andy-xr said:

I'm not entirely convinced that the deportation side of human rights laws is the main focus here.

After Theresa May's past efforts as Home Secretary, to me it's going to be about mass surveillance and encryption standards and that'll be slipped in somewhere in a random paragraph.

It's a shame there's nothing in the HRA about security of correspondence.

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.

[glasgow mega snake]

Camoradi said:

I think all possible measures should be taken. I don't see why anything which can save lives should be excluded. The freedoms we all currently enjoy rely upon everyone playing by the rules of a civilized society. Some people are exploiting these freedoms, so the rules may have to be changed. I don't want this to happen, but given recent events I am realistic enough to accept it may have to for some limited time at least.

Ok then. Humour me, but what if nobody was allowed out after dark at all? After all, it's much easier to see what people are up to in daylight. I don't see that we really need to be outside at night, anyway. I mean, it should be possible for society to continue to function just in the day time. And bad people wouldn't be able to get up to so much mischief in the daytime. Anyone outside at night would automatically be suspect.

This is the problem! You can't say stuff 'oh yeah just go ahead and take all possible measures, it won't affect me' because you are transferring your rights and freedoms to the state who can take them away. We have to stand up for and protect and cherish the freedoms we have because they are hard won and valuable. They can't be given away for short term political gain.

[TooMany2cvs]

glasgow mega snake said:

This is the problem! You can't say stuff 'oh yeah just go ahead and take all possible measures, it won't affect me' because you are transferring your rights and freedoms to the state who can take them away. We have to stand up for and protect and cherish the freedoms we have because they are hard won and valuable. They can't be given away for short term political gain.

<ding>
Pastor Martin Niemuller had it.

[jcremonini]

TooMany2cvs said:

Wobbegong said:

Is the plan to take away certain human rights for everyone or just those of criminals/terrorists/those with links to terrorism?

Without evidence and trials, how do you know who's who?

Scrapping the human rights act does not mean getting rid of the judiscial system in the UK. It would still function in the same way.

Therefore, there is a need to collate evidence and present it so it's not like (and I think I am repeating myself here) they are going to be using this against law abiding, non suspicious, people.

Do you seriously believe scrapping the HR laws will somehow put us back 1000 years ?! You seem to.

[dazwalsh]

glasgow mega snake said:

Camoradi said:

I'm quite prepared to sacrifice some of my rights if it reduces the chance of innocent people being run over on bridges, blown up at concerts, or stabbed to death whilst eating out. I suspect in practice I wouldn't even know it was happening.

And what if there was a way that you could reduce the chances of those events without sacrificing your rights?

Then you would have the answer to solving terrorism, and we are all ears, just don't make yourself silly by suggesting more police officers.

Edited by dazwalsh on Wednesday 7th June 10:03

[TooMany2cvs]

jcremonini said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Wobbegong said:

Is the plan to take away certain human rights for everyone or just those of criminals/terrorists/those with links to terrorism?

Without evidence and trials, how do you know who's who?

Scrapping the human rights act does not mean getting rid of the judiscial system in the UK. It would still function in the same way.

Right up until the point that it doesn't, but there's nobody to appeal to get that back.

And if it won't make any difference, then why get rid of it?

[glasgow mega snake]

It's also worth pointing out that millions of people died fighting against (and for...) governments that didn't believe in these rights as little as 70 years ago.

[Tryke3]

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?

Or just do the job with the powers that you have which are enough, nope dont take blame for your own incompetence blame someone else, yep still the EU although not sure how that will be possible in a couple of years

[oyster]

TooMany2cvs said:

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.

Is this what it's come to - people lying to try and justify their opinions?

The terrorists are winning if that's what we've become as a society.

[Wobbegong]

TooMany2cvs said:

jcremonini said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Wobbegong said:

Is the plan to take away certain human rights for everyone or just those of criminals/terrorists/those with links to terrorism?

Without evidence and trials, how do you know who's who?

Scrapping the human rights act does not mean getting rid of the judiscial system in the UK. It would still function in the same way.

Right up until the point that it doesn't, but there's nobody to appeal to get that back.

And if it won't make any difference, then why get rid of it?

That is what concerns me. Remember the time that anti-terror laws were abused by the UK councils?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Hal...

[plasticpig]

jcremonini said:

Scrapping the human rights act does not mean getting rid of the judiscial system in the UK. It would still function in the same way.

Therefore, there is a need to collate evidence and present it so it's not like (and I think I am repeating myself here) they are going to be using this against law abiding, non suspicious, people.

Do you seriously believe scrapping the HR laws will somehow put us back 1000 years ?! You seem to.

All the scrapping of the human rights act will do is give the European Court Of Human Rights more business as the human rights act is just an enshrinement of the convention in UK law.

[TooMany2cvs]

oyster said:

TooMany2cvs said:

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.

Is this what it's come to - people lying to try and justify their opinions?

The terrorists are winning if that's what we've become as a society.

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.

[jcremonini]

TooMany2cvs said:

jcremonini said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Wobbegong said:

Is the plan to take away certain human rights for everyone or just those of criminals/terrorists/those with links to terrorism?

Without evidence and trials, how do you know who's who?

Scrapping the human rights act does not mean getting rid of the judiscial system in the UK. It would still function in the same way.

Right up until the point that it doesn't, but there's nobody to appeal to get that back.

And if it won't make any difference, then why get rid of it?

I said it won't change the judiscial system. It needs changing so that the police and other authorities have additional powers, at times of need and for persons of particular interest. Your problem is you seem to think this will affect you - it won't (unless you are a criminal of course).

[Camoradi]

glasgow mega snake said:

Camoradi said:

I think all possible measures should be taken. I don't see why anything which can save lives should be excluded. The freedoms we all currently enjoy rely upon everyone playing by the rules of a civilized society. Some people are exploiting these freedoms, so the rules may have to be changed. I don't want this to happen, but given recent events I am realistic enough to accept it may have to for some limited time at least.

Ok then. Humour me, but what if nobody was allowed out after dark at all? After all, it's much easier to see what people are up to in daylight. I don't see that we really need to be outside at night, anyway. I mean, it should be possible for society to continue to function just in the day time. And bad people wouldn't be able to get up to so much mischief in the daytime. Anyone outside at night would automatically be suspect.

This is the problem! You can't say stuff 'oh yeah just go ahead and take all possible measures, it won't affect me' because you are transferring your rights and freedoms to the state who can take them away. We have to stand up for and protect and cherish the freedoms we have because they are hard won and valuable. They can't be given away for short term political gain.

OK then. In the extremely unlikely situation you describe, I may live to regret my laissez faire attitude to personal freedoms. I'm prepared to take an informed and pragmatic decision of the risk of this occurring based on my experience of life in the UK and knowledge of our government(s) and security services.

[otolith]

I'm surprised by the extent to which people trust the state with easily abused powers.

I don't think there is any problem with human rights legislation. I do think that some of the judicial interpretation is perverse - I'd quite happily deport anyone who commits serious crimes, irrespective of the situation in their homeland - but I think granting extra-judicial powers to officials must always be done with extreme caution. In a motoring context, look at the scope creep on Section 59.

[rscott]

jcremonini said:

I said it won't change the judiscial system. It needs changing so that the police and other authorities have additional powers, at times of need and for persons of particular interest. Your problem is you seem to think this will affect you - it won't (unless you are a criminal of course).

What extra powers would you suggest they should have?

[Wobbegong]

otolith said:

I'm surprised by the extent to which people trust the state with easily abused powers.

I don't think there is any problem with human rights legislation. I do think that some of the judicial interpretation is perverse - I'd quite happily deport anyone who commits serious crimes, irrespective of the situation in their homeland - but I think granting extra-judicial powers to officials must always be done with extreme caution. In a motoring context, look at the scope creep on Section 59.

[Jordan210]

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.