I don't want my human rights torn up - letting terrorism win
Discussion
CAPP0 said:
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.
No, you make sure you have EVIDENCE (remember that?), and give them a FAIR TRIAL (remember those?), and then SENTENCE THEM...TooMany2cvs said:
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...
Oh, that's ok then. I didn't realise that the rights of a foreign criminal rapist trumped the rights of a British women not be raped in her own country by someone who ought not to be here.As for being "complicit" in torture and murder - bulls
t. If, and it's a big if, his own country choose to do that, that's their choice not ours. None of our business. If he didn't want to be sent home, he shouldn't have raped.CAPP0 said:
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.Comrade Steptoe said:
TooMany2cvs said:
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...
Oh, that's ok then. I didn't realise that the rights of a foreign criminal rapist trumped the rights of a British women not be raped in her own country by someone who ought not to be here.Comrade Steptoe said:
As for being "complicit" in torture and murder - bullst. If, and it's a big if, his own country choose to do that, that's their choice not ours. None of our business.
I suspect you didn't have an issue with extraordinary rendition, either.t. If, and it's a big if, his own country choose to do that, that's their choice not ours. None of our business.Stickyfinger said:
glasgow mega snake said:
Teresa May thinks we should be able to lock up people who are not criminals because they might do something.
Vote loser
No she did not.......she said deport them to their own countryVote loser
If they are British then they stay here under our laws
You are talking b
kS"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."
poo at Paul's said:
glasgow mega snake said:
My bold
Teresa May thinks we should be able to lock up people who are not criminals because they might do something.
Vote loser
You mean like these last lot of wTeresa May thinks we should be able to lock up people who are not criminals because they might do something.
Vote loser
kers who did the London thing? glasgow mega snake said:
Actually I'm not, here's what Teresa may said:
"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."
You are"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."
Lock up...is NOT "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.
So yes....you ARE talking b
kSglasgow mega snake said:
What you all seem to be arguing is that, in principle, you'd be ok with just giving people with fast cars points and fines because it looks like they might be preparing to break speed limits.
No one has said any such thing. Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 7th June 08:45
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.
So you think Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott are the answer? Have a look at the sky news interview with Diane about terrorism, and consider that she may be chairing the next Cobra meeting.Jeremys view on terrorists are well known of course.
TooMany2cvs said:
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...Why should anyone care?
He was given an incredible opportunity to be free of his "lawless" home country, to a first world country which welcomed him and provided him an extravagant (by Somalian standards) safety net. He repaid our generosity by raping one of our citizens.
In my book, he is no longer welcome to step foot on UK soil ever again. What happens to him beyond that is not our responsibility. Maybe next time he should try not raping the locals.
glasgow mega snake said:
Actually I'm not, here's what Teresa may said:
"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."
Where exactly does she say 'lock up'?"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."
98elise said:
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.
So you think Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott are the answer? Have a look at the sky news interview with Diane about terrorism, and consider that she may be chairing the next Cobra meeting.Jeremys view on terrorists are well known of course.
Do you really want to give up your rights which weren't even causing a problem? Musn't be worth much to you then are they?
Stickyfinger said:
TooMany2cvs said:
I suspect you didn't have an issue with extraordinary rendition, either.
Do you have a problem with the laws relating to Conspiracy then ?amusingduck said:
He was given an incredible opportunity to be free of his "lawless" home country, to a first world country which welcomed him and provided him an extravagant (by Somalian standards) safety net. He repaid our generosity by raping one of our citizens.
Fine. So look at the evidence, try him, and find him guilty if the evidence warrants it. Then sentence him for the crime. Oh, wait, that's exactly what actually happened, and why he's staring at the walls of a prison cell right now.Does the sentence for rape include torture and death? No...
Should it? I suspect we might disagree on that one.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 7th June 08:52
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff