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

[andy-xr]

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.

[jcremonini]

The same people that harp on about their 'human rights' are the same people who moan that there are too many CCTV's and turning the country into a 'survellance state' and abusing their 'right to privacy'.

That's despite the fact CCTV solves , or helps solves, an enormous number of murder, assault, rape, violence, missing persons cases every year. But screw that - they don't want some anonymous person watching them shuffling up and down a high street, doing nothing of any interest to said person, a few times a day.

[Camoradi]

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.

[TooMany2cvs]

jcremonini said:

I wasn't asking you.

Boo. Hoo.

jcremonini said:

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 ?!

They protect me from a government arbitrarily deciding to do something like that, yes. That's EXACTLY what they do, for all of us.

You're in the wrong place at the wrong time, and get accused of something you didn't do? Evidence has to be produced, and a fair trial gone through, before you can be punished.
The government decide they want to build a road or a railway or an airport and your house is in the way? The compulsory purchase has to go through legal steps, and you have to be paid a fair value.
The government want to start tapping phone calls or reading emails? Legally, with good reason, thanks.
You want to meet up with a bunch of other car people on a Sunday morning? There has to be a good legal reason to stop you.

[glasgow mega snake]

Stickyfinger said:

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

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

I wasn't talking bks. How do you think TM is going to restrict these (untrialled, unconvicted) individual's freedom of movement? Ban them from walking but allow them to hop everywhere? Maybe they'll only be allowed to travel by unicycle.

In the case of the recent London attacks, the extreme views of the individuals had been reported to the appropriate organisations, who didn't act on the information because they considered the individuals as not a threat. In a world with limited resources, these organisations can only prioritise the most extreme cases. It's clear that we already have all of the legal powers we need - but more resources are needed if we think that stopping these attacks is important. Who decreased the resources for these services over the past few years? Teresa May.

TM herself mentioned that we need to uphold the values of our society. I absolutely agree with this. For me, one these values is not to be subject to legal penalty without evidence or a 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.

People in many countrie don't have the same rights and freedoms we do in the UK, we rightly pity them. we shouldn't jeopardise our core values for short term political gain.

Is it time for that Benjamin franklin quote yet?

[Murph7355]

TooMany2cvs said:

So what's wrong with those?
...

Potentially nothing.

But these things are a two way contract IMO. You come here to live for whatever reason, you abide by our laws and way of living.

Once you transgress as a foreign national, I'm with stickyfingers. The primary recourse ought to be deportation. And if the place you come from is dangerous, tough luck. You should have thought about that before transgressing.

I also think we have tended to lose sight of the "rights" of the nationals who have been transgressed against. The primary priority of our government should be the protection of its citizens over and above anyone else.

21TonyK said:

"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.

Generally I'm OK with this. But a couple of things niggle.

1) Why did she not do something about this over the last 7yrs?

2) Are we sure that these things will actually change anything? They are worded in such a way that I can all too easily imagine it being so much hot air.

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. ....

That is a concern, BUT have all these reports been verified? I thought I'd read somewhere that the Manchester ones hadn't been.

[TooMany2cvs]

Murph7355 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

So what's wrong with those?
...

Potentially nothing.

But these things are a two way contract IMO. You come here to live for whatever reason, you abide by our laws and way of living.

Nobody is saying otherwise. You break the law, you're subject to the judicial system. Evidence. Trial. Sentencing.

Murph7355 said:

Once you transgress as a foreign national, I'm with stickyfingers. The primary recourse ought to be deportation.

Nobody's saying otherwise...

[del mar]

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...

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 7th June 09:13

Whilst a weak argument could we not argue that.

The treatment he will get back in Somalia is within their Law and is in accordance with a law he fully understands ?

What would happen if an American on death row for murder managed to escape to Europe ? To return him to the US would result in almost certain death, which would clash with the above articles.

[jcremonini]

TooMany2cvs said:

jcremonini said:

I wasn't asking you.

Boo. Hoo.

jcremonini said:

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 ?!

They protect me from a government arbitrarily deciding to do something like that, yes. That's EXACTLY what they do, for all of us.

You're in the wrong place at the wrong time, and get accused of something you didn't do? Evidence has to be produced, and a fair trial gone through, before you can be punished.
The government decide they want to build a road or a railway or an airport and your house is in the way? The compulsory purchase has to go through legal steps, and you have to be paid a fair value.
The government want to start tapping phone calls or reading emails? Legally, with good reason, thanks.
You want to meet up with a bunch of other car people on a Sunday morning? There has to be a good legal reason to stop you.

Absolute nonsense. If the police want to tap my phone of read my emails then it does not bother me one jot. I have nothing to hide and, therefore, nothing to worry about so why should it? Similarly, if they want to stop me on a Sunday morning for 'no good reason' then they can - my insurance is paid for, the car is mine. Why would that bother me too ?

If you honestly believe the police , or the authorities, are going to be using their powers to harrass ordinary members of society then I suggest you carry on with your Bacofoil hat and continue with life as best as your conspiratorial mind will allow you to.

[HoHoHo]

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.

A point I made on page 1 was but was conveniently ignored.

[glasgow mega snake]

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?

[Wills2]

glasgow 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.

That cannot be a serious attempt at supporting your argument, what kind of thought process leads you to such a statement?

[del mar]

TooMany2cvs said:

jcremonini said:

I wasn't asking you.

Boo. Hoo.

jcremonini said:

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 ?!

They protect me from a government arbitrarily deciding to do something like that, yes. That's EXACTLY what they do, for all of us.

You're in the wrong place at the wrong time, and get accused of something you didn't do? Evidence has to be produced, and a fair trial gone through, before you can be punished.
The government decide they want to build a road or a railway or an airport and your house is in the way? The compulsory purchase has to go through legal steps, and you have to be paid a fair value.
The government want to start tapping phone calls or reading emails? Legally, with good reason, thanks.
You want to meet up with a bunch of other car people on a Sunday morning? There has to be a good legal reason to stop you.

Some seem to think that 1997 and prior was like the wild west, it wasn't.

[MDMetal]

Murph7355 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

So what's wrong with those?
...

Potentially nothing.

But these things are a two way contract IMO. You come here to live for whatever reason, you abide by our laws and way of living.

Once you transgress as a foreign national, I'm with stickyfingers. The primary recourse ought to be deportation. And if the place you come from is dangerous, tough luck. You should have thought about that before transgressing.

I also think we have tended to lose sight of the "rights" of the nationals who have been transgressed against. The primary priority of our government should be the protection of its citizens over and above anyone else.

21TonyK said:

"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.

Generally I'm OK with this. But a couple of things niggle.

1) Why did she not do something about this over the last 7yrs?

2) Are we sure that these things will actually change anything? They are worded in such a way that I can all too easily imagine it being so much hot air.

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. ....

That is a concern, BUT have all these reports been verified? I thought I'd read somewhere that the Manchester ones hadn't been.

Has anyone said "yah we had them, but our hands were tied" nope, they had no clue, we shouldn't be talking about what happens if we catch them after they do something we need to talk about how to catch them before! To be clear I'm well up for a debate about deporting people but that isn't the issue here and it wouldn't have solved anything but now your all yacking away about it so it's clearly worked.

People seem to have read my posts and felt I was against deporting them, I'm not please feel free to round up their dead bodies and deport them now we know who they were and what they were doing. All done? great now how did that help prevent anything at all? Did we need more survelance on them? No they were reported multiple times so someone on the right of this issue please explain how having been reported multiple times the authorities failed to do anything?

[TooMany2cvs]

del mar said:

What would happen if an American on death row for murder managed to escape to Europe ? To return him to the US would result in almost certain death, which would clash with the above articles.

No, it wouldn't.

ECHR said:

...save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

Somalia doesn't have any kind of functioning judicial system that weighs evidence before coming to a verdict.

[Shakermaker]

Could you consider that deporting someone back to their home country for committing a crime such as rape, might be viewed as them not actually being punished at all, as they'll be unlikely to face any jail time or any form of restriction once they are gone?

I used to think "yeah, send them back!" was a reasonable response but as I've got a bit older I've rather thought that people need to be punished for their crimes, and in that respect, race/nationality should not be the deciding factor.

[TooMany2cvs]

del mar said:

Some seem to think that 1997 and prior was like the wild west, it wasn't.

The UK signed up to this in 1953.

HRA98 simply meant UK courts could prosecute breaches, rather than having to go to the European court.

[otolith]

del mar said:

What would happen if an American on death row for murder managed to escape to Europe ? To return him to the US would result in almost certain death, which would clash with the above articles.

We would not return him without assurances that he would not face the death penalty.

He might even be able to argue that life without parole means he can't be returned.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/09/murder...

[Camoradi]

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?

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.

[Wobbegong]

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