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

[Eddie Strohacker]

Comrade Steptoe said:

So I take it that having lost the argument, you are now resorting to an ad hominem.

Nice one sonny.

[Europa1]

Comrade Steptoe said:

Wise man said - "When in hole, stop digging"

I'd wrap it up if I were you chump. You've tried your best, no shame in admitting you've made a total cock of yourself.

I must say, this thread has over-delivered.

[Disastrous]

Comrade Steptoe said:

Eddie Strohacker said:

Actually, you have. Never forget this particular cul-de-sac began when you claimed most of PH agreed with you that Khan is a wrong'un because I said I discussed it daily.

I've discussed it with three people here. You, Rich W & Hosenbugler. So, armed with that knowledge, I can say with 100% confidence your wrong is wrongier than the wrongiest wrong'un in wrongrovia.

Now run along to your mum, the grown ups have talking to do. Sonny.

So I take it that having lost the argument, you are now resorting to an ad hominem.

Nice one sonny.

Only one loser on this thread I'm afraid. You might notice from the lack of support you are receiving from the more vociferous of the PH 'right' that even they don't seem to think you are winning here...

[rscott]

Trexthedinosaur said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Trexthedinosaur said:

A bit like those terrorists who have attacked the UK three times in as many months?

I have no qualms about locking potential terrorists up forever and a day of it makes our country safer.

And how many people would Sir be happy to imprison indefinitely without trial, in order to have saved those 37 lives?

Would you also like to similarly lock up potential Thomas Mairs or, going back a bit further, David Copelands?

As many as it takes, as I nor my family have any terrorist sympathies, we have nothing to fear.

How many 'people' who express and support acts of terror are you willing to Imprison proactively in order to save lives, zero?

Is the price you see of living in our free democratic society that we accept a terrorist attack now and then?

What would you proactive measure be? We know who is a potential threat but we lack the powers to do anything until it is too late, that needs to change.

Rather than lock them up without trial, as some are suggesting, why not introduce new offences which outlaw their behaviour? Then they can be prosecuted and imprisoned/deported/tagged/ whatever?

Or even just use existing legislation to prosecute and detain them..
ISIS/ISIL is already a proscribed organisation and it's an offence to support/recruit for them or even wear clothing/carry articles which support them. So waving an ISIS flag around in a park was already an offence? ( http://www.northeastctu.police.uk/public-informati... )

[wc98]

rscott said:

Getting back to the original post - this would suggest that existing legislation isn't being used to it's full extent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/06/reveale...

Butt was a known associate of Choudary, abused the chief exec of the Ramadhan Foundation and attacked a member of Quilliam (both of which are recognised and praised for their work against extremists), yet was let off with a caution.
While on the watch list, he got a job working for London Underground at Westminster & Canary Wharf stations.

more needs to be made of this. the simple fact is we do not appear to be using the powers already available .

[Terzo123]

This "Sonny" patter is ste.

I don't have anything further to add.

[Mrr T]

Trexthedinosaur said:

As many as it takes, as I nor my family have any terrorist sympathies, we have nothing to fear.

How many 'people' who express and support acts of terror are you willing to Imprison proactively in order to save lives, zero?

Is the price you see of living in our free democratic society that we accept a terrorist attack now and then?

What would you proactive measure be? We know who is a potential threat but we lack the powers to do anything until it is too late, that needs to change.

How many is that?

Its already an offence to promote terrorism, to provide funding for terrorism.

People are in jail for these offences.

So who would you lock up?

So if you watch a ISIS video on the internet should you go to jail? How about if you know someone who has watched a ISIS video.

How about if you just want to discuss the aims of ISIS?

The fact is we have lots of laws but catching and imprisoning terrorist is not easy.

[TooMany2cvs]

Trexthedinosaur said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Trexthedinosaur said:

A bit like those terrorists who have attacked the UK three times in as many months?

I have no qualms about locking potential terrorists up forever and a day of it makes our country safer.

And how many people would Sir be happy to imprison indefinitely without trial, in order to have saved those 37 lives?

Would you also like to similarly lock up potential Thomas Mairs or, going back a bit further, David Copelands?

As many as it takes, as I nor my family have any terrorist sympathies, we have nothing to fear.

Because, obviously, not a single wrongly identified person could be among those hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands...

Trexthedinosaur said:

How many 'people' who express and support acts of terror are you willing to Imprison proactively in order to save lives, zero?

As many as can be proven to be guilty of offences in a free and fair trial, on the basis of evidence.

Trexthedinosaur said:

Is the price you see of living in our free democratic society that we accept a terrorist attack now and then?

Doesn't seem unrealistic to me, especially a free democratic society that gets involved in global military interventions.

There's been three fatal terrorist attacks this year so far in the UK, killing slightly more than one person per week on average. Sure, that's an increase on roughly one every other month on average over the last decade or so (massively skewed by a single event, 7th July), but a huge increase over the previous few decades.

This year's total death toll so far is about one average week's road deaths in this country. It's about two day's worth of fatal accidents in the home.

Trexthedinosaur said:

What would you proactive measure be?

How proactive do you want to be? I'm very happy for it to be reactive to actual proof.

Trexthedinosaur said:

We know who is a potential threat

Really...? You sure about that?

Anyway, as I already asked - is this purely an Islamist thing, or will potential Mairs and Copelands also be being interned?

[durbster]

rscott said:

Comrade Steptoe said:

p1stonhead said:

Fairly transparent isnt it. 'Lifelong petrolhead' with a two month old account, 80 posts and none at all car based all about political issues.

Oh, I do apologise. I missed the rule that said you must be a member for 10 years, and have posted 759 times on Pagini piston rings before being allowed to post on here.

Just surprising that a "lifelong petrolhead" doesn't appear to have any contributions whatsoever to non-political discussions on a motoring website.

There are lots of these kinds of accounts popping up these days, all armed with the exact same material.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

Trexthedinosaur said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Trexthedinosaur said:

A bit like those terrorists who have attacked the UK three times in as many months?

I have no qualms about locking potential terrorists up forever and a day of it makes our country safer.

And how many people would Sir be happy to imprison indefinitely without trial, in order to have saved those 37 lives?

Would you also like to similarly lock up potential Thomas Mairs or, going back a bit further, David Copelands?

As many as it takes, as I nor my family have any terrorist sympathies, we have nothing to fear.

Because, obviously, not a single wrongly identified person could be among those hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands...

Trexthedinosaur said:

How many 'people' who express and support acts of terror are you willing to Imprison proactively in order to save lives, zero?

As many as can be proven to be guilty of offences in a free and fair trial, on the basis of evidence.

Trexthedinosaur said:

Is the price you see of living in our free democratic society that we accept a terrorist attack now and then?

Doesn't seem unrealistic to me, especially a free democratic society that gets involved in global military interventions.

There's been three fatal terrorist attacks this year so far in the UK, killing slightly more than one person per week on average. Sure, that's an increase on roughly one every other month on average over the last decade or so (massively skewed by a single event, 7th July), but a huge increase over the previous few decades.

This year's total death toll so far is about one average week's road deaths in this country. It's about two day's worth of fatal accidents in the home.

Trexthedinosaur said:

What would you proactive measure be?

How proactive do you want to be? I'm very happy for it to be reactive to actual proof.

Trexthedinosaur said:

We know who is a potential threat

Really...? You sure about that?

Anyway, as I already asked - is this purely an Islamist thing, or will potential Mairs and Copelands also be being interned?

I am not responding individually as I am on my phone but;

If we believe the media then MI5 are 'watching' appx 3000 people, the reports lead is to believe all perpetrators of these attacks were known, 3000 people represent appx 0.005% of this country (@70M pop), those people should be rounded up and tried as there MUST be a reason they are on the watch list, if found guilty lock them up, if not then they are free.

I am not even commenting on your point that you believe that terrorism is a price to pay for democracy, that is frankly unbelievable; even being involved in global conflict - let's just wait and in 20 years we have an ISIS Caliphate that is strong, established with their own educational system / army and greater political power on a regional and maybe global scale, that has to be stopped before it begins (again proactive).

Fatal car crashes and home accidents are exactly that, accidents, terrorism is a targeted planned attack, therefore not comparable.

No, this is for anyone, much like that young lad who got 15 years for leaving a bomb on the tube.

[TooMany2cvs]

Trexthedinosaur said:

If we believe the media then MI5 are 'watching' appx 3000 people, the reports lead is to believe all perpetrators of these attacks were known, 3000 people represent appx 0.005% of this country (@70M pop), those people should be rounded up and tried as there MUST be a reason they are on the watch list, if found guilty lock them up, if not then they are free.

You do know the difference between suspecting something (which is what gets people on the list) and actually having sufficient evidence for a successful trial, right...?

So, congratulations, all you've done there is alerted all the people on the watch list that they're on it, and told them just how little actual evidence you've got against them, in the process giving some pretty bloody good pointers as to the sources of the information...

If there was sufficient evidence for charges, they'd already be inside.

Trexthedinosaur said:

Fatal car crashes and home accidents are exactly that, accidents, terrorism is a targeted planned attack, therefore not comparable.

You misunderstand me - I'm pointing out that the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack is miniscule.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

Trexthedinosaur said:

If we believe the media then MI5 are 'watching' appx 3000 people, the reports lead is to believe all perpetrators of these attacks were known, 3000 people represent appx 0.005% of this country (@70M pop), those people should be rounded up and tried as there MUST be a reason they are on the watch list, if found guilty lock them up, if not then they are free.

You do know the difference between suspecting something (which is what gets people on the list) and actually having sufficient evidence for a successful trial, right...?

So, congratulations, all you've done there is alerted all the people on the watch list that they're on it, and told them just how little actual evidence you've got against them, in the process giving some pretty bloody good pointers as to the sources of the information...

If there was sufficient evidence for charges, they'd already be inside.

Trexthedinosaur said:

Fatal car crashes and home accidents are exactly that, accidents, terrorism is a targeted planned attack, therefore not comparable.

You misunderstand me - I'm pointing out that the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack is miniscule.

So according to you, rather than do anything let's wait for them to crash a van into a crowd, or commit multiple stabbings ...

Do you work for MI5, are you aware of how they gather their information and the methods they use? I'm not so I won't speculate.

Last post on this, clearly you are of the head in sand let's do nothing all is well with the UK ilk.

[Wiccan of Darkness]

The moment I heard this on the radio I thought 'oh that's not good'. My initial reactions are always right, I remember being in the car when MP's pay structure changed (Michael Howard was leader) and their salary was to be topped up with expenses, I thought at the time they'll never make it stick and will have to fabricate insane expenses to top up their salary.

We have enough laws in place to adequately keep them under surveillance. We beat the IRA, at one point there were less than 5 IRA members who weren't in the maze.

Human rights legislation has however, and I will agree, frustrated a lot of security work in the last few years.

I think the public backlash against sections of the community in the wake of such terror attacks will provide prospective jihadists with no place to hide.

New laws are not the answer, when current laws are effective but need to be enforced and interpreted with greater efficiency.

[anonymous-user]

David-3y21c / Comrade Steptoe

Sometimes less is more if you get my drift

[TooMany2cvs]

Trexthedinosaur said:

So according to you, rather than do anything let's wait for them to crash a van into a crowd, or commit multiple stabbings ...

No...

Work in the background to find out who's doing what, gather evidence on them, lay charges where the evidence supports it, and stop things from happening. It's what they're doing now, have always been doing - and it's working very well, from what (little?) we know.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/06/uk...

The security forces have to be lucky every time. The bad guys only have to be lucky once.

So tell us how you plan to stop something like Westminster Bridge - one random fkwit with a rental car and a kitchen knife?
Lee Rigby and London Bridge had a tiny handful of semi-organised random fkwits with similarly prosaic equipment - what sort of level of communications interception do you need to be sure of getting that, every single time?
7/7, Manchester and Thomas Mair had a bit harder-to-obtain kit, but nothing too rocket-science.

[glasgow mega snake]

Trexthedinosaur said:

So according to you, rather than do anything let's wait for them to crash a van into a crowd, or commit multiple stabbings ...

Do you work for MI5, are you aware of how they gather their information and the methods they use? I'm not so I won't speculate.

Last post on this, clearly you are of the head in sand let's do nothing all is well with the UK ilk.

there are loads of other crimes (i.e. all of them) that we wait until people commit before arresting, charging and trialling, and if appropriate (i.e. if they are found guilty) punishing for.

Isn't it a bit bonkers that you are suggesting that we 'do something' before an individual 'does something'.

how are you going to identify the individuals that were 'about to' commit a crime?

Will this apply to all crimes?

do you not see the problem with what you are proposing?

just for some context:



this the background to which you are proposing to punish people who have not committed any crimes to. DO you think such severe measures, actually going against legal principles which have been established, and written down, in this country for more than 800 years, are really necessary? And finally, do you not think that the widely-stated goal 'we will defend our values and our way of life in the face of terrorism' (paraphrasing) is inconsistent with such measures?

Edited by glasgow mega snake on Wednesday 7th June 18:42

[TooMany2cvs]

TooMany2cvs said:

Trexthedinosaur said:

Fatal car crashes and home accidents are exactly that, accidents, terrorism is a targeted planned attack, therefore not comparable.

You misunderstand me - I'm pointing out that the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack is miniscule.

And, right on cue (and sitting nicely alongside Glasgow Mega Snake's chart)...

[wst]

Trexthedinosaur said:

A bit like those terrorists who have attacked the UK three times in as many months?

I have no qualms about locking potential terrorists up forever and a day if it makes our country safer.

Vote winner.

Nothing about the Human Rights Act, or the ECHR, stopped our Government from arresting those people who were - up until they became terrorists - potential terrorists.

If we ditch the Human Rights Act, and one day you need it, too bad - you're going to have to go to Strasbourg instead of getting it applied here. Membership of the ECHR is seperate from the EU, so Brexit alone won't stop that from happening.

[glasgow mega snake]

and on the other point, as a society we accept deaths in car crashes, train crashes, skydiving, cycling, pedestrianising, etc. etc. as a necessary cost for the freedom we have to undertake those activities. At the same time, we do everything we can to minimise deaths arising from the exercise of these freedoms.

Why should the same strategy not possible for the maintenance of fundamental legal rights?

[Getragdogleg]

I am quite glad we are leaving the EU, it means that ordinary people have a chance to influence the decision makers, either by voting them in/out or actually talking to their MP and making sure their points and concerns are listened to.

Unlike life within the EU which was typically "Here is a rule, do it" with zero chance of getting rid of bad legislation or tailoring it to suit any implementation problems that are encountered.

All the people who wanted to remain should now use their angry energy to make sure the Brexit deal we get is the best one and to make sure that from now on our political classes can hear us loud and clear and not hide behind the excuse of "the EU told us to do it".