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

[glasgow mega snake]

sidicks said:

No one has said any such thing. If you can't understand the difference then I suggest you step away from the keyboard before you make yourself look even more stupid.

Two key words: in principle

Teresa may has suggested that we should be able to restrict freedom of movement of suspects when there isn't enough evidence to prosecute.

I.e. Apply a punishment in the abscenxe of a conviction because something could happen, or it looks like something could happen.

Now what I suggested is a motoring based analogy that conforms to then principles and ideals outlined as acceptable by TM.

Many people here are saying that they agree with TM.

Ergo, in principle, people here think such a move would be reasonable.

[glasgow mega snake]

Stickyfinger said:

glasgow mega snake said:

Stickyfinger said:

More bkS

A persuasive argument. You might want to try disagreeing with some supporting arguments, otherwise your views won't really elicit much credibility. I think you would get on well with Teresa may.

LOL.....try to get your quotes accurate and your imagination out of your arse first then.....idiot

Could you point out the bit that I quoted that was inaccurate then please?

[Vocal Minority]

menousername said:

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 bliss

They have sufficient powers to deal with these issues. As has been mentioned by others, nearly all perpetrators were known / reported.

This is the thing.

The evidence shown is that the powers to deal with these people are already in place. They need better resourcing to cover it.

The current government policy is deport now and appeal later. You don't need a new law, you need a government that enforces the systems already in place.

May is just throwing sound bites at you as she knows you have been gotten good and scared - so will trade off things for protection from something you are already protected from. If your PM/Home Sec promising you these things bothered her arse to do it.

[rallycross]

spaximus said:

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.

Totally Agree what is wrong with these hand wringing pathetic liberal saps who can't see a common sense approach.

[glasgow mega snake]

Stickyfinger said:

You are

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 bkS

Oh I see. In practice then, how would you go about restricting the freedom of movement of somebody without confining them to a building, say? Even if it was their home.

You don't need to hear the jangle jangle of keys to be locked up.

[CAPP0]

MDMetal said:

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.

Sorry but when applying for asylum how do you check what someone might do in 10 years? Or are you saying the threat of deportation is so great it sets people straight? Doesn't seem to work with the death penalty! People are caught up discussing punishment not prevention. Mainly because if we talk about prevention most fingers would point in a single direction

"Sorry but" nobody said anything about checking what might happen in 10 years. You have a valid (on the day) reason for asylum, we grant it. If, however, you start unfurling ISIS flags in Hyde Park, attending whoever-took-over-from-Choudury rallies, watching Youtube videos on how to make a bomb, etc etc, then getting shot of them is prevention.

The pathetic liberal attitude which some people apply to everyone just because it make them feel like they're nice people is a significant contributor to all the terrorist deaths in this country in recent years. The extremists play by different rules, and in this case, on an exceptional basis, so should we.

Edited by CAPP0 on Wednesday 7th June 09:00

[Robertj21a]

rallycross said:

spaximus said:

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.

Totally Agree what is wrong with these hand wringing pathetic liberal saps who can't see a common sense approach.

+1 to both. It's about time we got real and took firmer action. There's a few people in this thread with rather too liberal views for my liking, not surprising that we end up stuck in debates and arguments rather than doing what is necessary.

[amusingduck]

TooMany2cvs said:

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 happened 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.

Why should the taxpayer pay to imprison a violent Somalian national who can simply be returned from whence he came, solving the problem for good?

Returning him to Somalia is not a sentence to torture and death. It's a sentence to revoke the privilege of living here. What happens beyond that is simply not our problem.

[MDMetal]

CAPP0 said:

MDMetal said:

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.

Sorry but when applying for asylum how do you check what someone might do in 10 years? Or are you saying the threat of deportation is so great it sets people straight? Doesn't seem to work with the death penalty! People are caught up discussing punishment not prevention. Mainly because if we talk about prevention most fingers would point in a single direction

"Sorry but" nobody said anything about checking what might happen in 10 years. You have a valid (on the day) reason for asylum, we grant it. If, however, you start unfurling ISIS flags in Hyde Park, attending whoever-took-over-from-Choudury rallies, watching Youtube videos on how to make a bomb, etc etc, then getting shot of them IS prevention.

The pathetic liberal attitude which some people apply to everyone just because it make them feel like they're nice people is a significant contributor to all the terrorist deaths in this country in recent years. The extremists play by different rules, and in this case, on an exceptional basis, so should we.

So your saying that we knew these people were up to no good? The news reports seem to paint a different picture, that despite several reports nothing was done. Are you saying that attending a rally would have cause authorities to react? More so than being reported by your own family or even another EU country. In fact why don't you just explain at what point these "exceptional circumstances" should have been used? Because so far all the news is saying is we didn't have a f***ing clue what they were up to so how the f*** would we know what rallies or videos they were watching in the first place?

If we did know what was happening we'd be having a debate about a trial or an attempted deportation of a group of men accuses of plotting something, since we're not we can assume like it's perfectly obvious that we didn't know anything.

Having a debate about what we could do had we known something is a bit pointless, lets have a debate about finding these people, that would have been some use in these situations.

[Stickyfinger]

glasgow mega snake said:

Stickyfinger said:

You are

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 bkS

Oh I see. In practice then, how would you go about restricting the freedom of movement of somebody without confining them to a building, say? Even if it was their home.

You don't need to hear the jangle jangle of keys to be locked up.

So...You WERE talking bks then, good that has been cleared up

OK....and YOUR plan is what exactly ?

[CAPP0]

MDMetal said:

So your saying that we knew these people were up to no good? The news reports seem to paint a different picture, that despite several reports nothing was done. Are you saying that attending a rally would have cause authorities to react? More so than being reported by your own family or even another EU country. In fact why don't you just explain at what point these "exceptional circumstances" should have been used? Because so far all the news is saying is we didn't have a f***ing clue what they were up to so how the f*** would we know what rallies or videos they were watching in the first place?

If we did know what was happening we'd be having a debate about a trial or an attempted deportation of a group of men accuses of plotting something, since we're not we can assume like it's perfectly obvious that we didn't know anything.

Having a debate about what we could do had we known something is a bit pointless, lets have a debate about finding these people, that would have been some use in these situations.

I'm all done with educating the under-fives for today. Crack on.

[TooMany2cvs]

amusingduck said:

Returning him to Somalia is not a sentence to torture and death.

A court, who actually looked at real evidence, disagreed. I think I know which I find more credible.

By the way, you do know that was a British judge in a British court, right?

[MDMetal]

CAPP0 said:

MDMetal said:

So your saying that we knew these people were up to no good? The news reports seem to paint a different picture, that despite several reports nothing was done. Are you saying that attending a rally would have cause authorities to react? More so than being reported by your own family or even another EU country. In fact why don't you just explain at what point these "exceptional circumstances" should have been used? Because so far all the news is saying is we didn't have a f***ing clue what they were up to so how the f*** would we know what rallies or videos they were watching in the first place?

If we did know what was happening we'd be having a debate about a trial or an attempted deportation of a group of men accuses of plotting something, since we're not we can assume like it's perfectly obvious that we didn't know anything.

Having a debate about what we could do had we known something is a bit pointless, lets have a debate about finding these people, that would have been some use in these situations.

I'm all done with educating the under-fives for today. Crack on.

A sad day when the under-fives have more sense than the teacher.... no need to explain how any of this would have helpped then. Tell me how you get these clowns in the back of a police car and then we can debate what to do with them. All of this is a nice little smoke screen around the person who is most responsible of all of those standing for election tomorrow. Someone who until about a week ago had my vote in her bag. What a collosal f*** up

[Stickyfinger]

TooMany2cvs said:

A court, who actually looked at real evidence, disagreed. I think I know which I find more credible.

By the way, you do know that was a British judge in a British court, right?

Under the legal guidelines he is bound by.......change those guidelines and you will change the judgement

[jcremonini]

MDMetal said:

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.

No i don't but i'm pretty sure tearing up my rights isn't going to solve anything and I quite value my rights. Again show me when any of these clowns were in a position to be arrested or locked up on even the most spurious charges? They were reported by family, comunities and authorities and they weren't followed, tracked or looked at to a level of detail that would have exposed this. At no point did human rights reduce the authorities ability to stop this.

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?

You say you 'value your rights' and don't want them tearing up. OK - so which particular rights do you believe you, personally, will lose if the human rights act was torn up. I am not interested in what you 'believe' someone else will lose, only you.

[TooMany2cvs]

Stickyfinger said:

TooMany2cvs said:

A court, who actually looked at real evidence, disagreed. I think I know which I find more credible.

By the way, you do know that was a British judge in a British court, right?

Under the legal guidelines he is bound by.......change those guidelines and you will change the judgement

Do you know what those "legal guidelines", articles 2 and 3, actually say?

In their entirety...

European Convention on Human Rights said:

ARTICLE 2 - Right to life
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

ARTICLE 3 - Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.p...

So what's wrong with those?

jcremonini said:

You say you 'value your rights' and don't want them tearing up. OK - so which particular rights do you believe you, personally, will lose if the human rights act was torn up. I am not interested in what you 'believe' someone else will lose, only you.

<points up to link> Those...

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 7th June 09:13

[Derek Smith]

MRobbins1987 said:

You could put 50,000 extra officer's on the streets and it wouldn't make a bit of difference, we simply don't have the powers to deal with these animals legally. It's quite clear that May is taking the correct stance on this from where I'm sitting.

There are ample powers to deal with offenders when there's evidence.

If you put that many police officers on the streets, bringing us up to nearly the level of, for instance, France, or nowhere near as many as Spain, adjusted for population, then it is probable that there would be a source of intelligence/information/evidence that is so sadly lacking in this country (England/Wales). Once the various government agencies had the evidence then ex judicial imprisonment and other punishments might not have to be indulged in.

Cameron, and now May, have expressed frustration that the law blocks them from doing what they want to do. That's what the law is for, to set a level that individuals can't ignore just because it suits their intent. The idea that proper punishment has been stopped wholesale by the HRA is nonsense. Isn't the HRA one of the reasons we are fighting terrorism and religious laws?

You might feel same under May but how about if Corbyn gets in, not this time probably, but next? Or his replacement? Will you feel safer then?

[jcremonini]

TooMany2cvs said:

Stickyfinger said:

TooMany2cvs said:

A court, who actually looked at real evidence, disagreed. I think I know which I find more credible.

By the way, you do know that was a British judge in a British court, right?

Under the legal guidelines he is bound by.......change those guidelines and you will change the judgement

Do you know what those "legal guidelines", articles 2 and 3, actually say?

In their entirety...

European Convention on Human Rights said:

ARTICLE 2 - Right to life
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

ARTICLE 3 - Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.p...

So what's wrong with those?

jcremonini said:

You say you 'value your rights' and don't want them tearing up. OK - so which particular rights do you believe you, personally, will lose if the human rights act was torn up. I am not interested in what you 'believe' someone else will lose, only you.

<points up to link> Those...

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 7th June 09:13

I wasn't asking you. But, anyway, in response to that, as a presumably peaceful, law abiding citizen do you seriously believe the scrapping of the human rights laws will subject you to contravention of those particular rights ?! What tosh,

[Stickyfinger]

TooMany2cvs said:

<points up to link> Those...

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 7th June 09:13

So....EVERY criminal, rapist, paedophile, killer and terrorist from every st hole is welcome to live here under our protection then ?

bks to that

[del mar]

TooMany2cvs said:

amusingduck said:

Returning him to Somalia is not a sentence to torture and death.

A court, who actually looked at real evidence, disagreed. I think I know which I find more credible.

By the way, you do know that was a British judge in a British court, right?

Surely he just goes to a different country and tries his luck in claiming asylum their ?

He is fleeing Somalia because his life is in danger, presumably because he has been a naughty boy, whilst we don't know the evidencet the court ruled on nobody bar the man himself will know the reason why he left Somalia.

He is fleeing the UK because he is going to be jailed for a "cultural misunderstanding"

I am sure Sweden will take him. Everybody is then happy.

For Asylum seekers committing a serious crime I don't see an issue with revoking their asylum status. If that means he goes back to Somalia so be it.

It is unlikely he will ever be a benefit to the UK, and the odds are he is not going to be rehabilitated in Jail, so what do we do when he is released ?

The real failing here has been with the Asylum process in the first place.