May will remove parts of human rights act if elected (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sky Blue Pete
- Start date
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
No, it's just that he hadn't broken any laws I presume. It's fuck all to do with human rights.
Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
I don't give a shit about Theresa May, I'm not a supporter of her. If she did that then she's an idiot.
All I care about is people being safe
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
And if we had amended the law so what he did was illegal then people would have been in uproar about human rights over it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
This is the bit people seem to miss / ignore with these people who are on watch lists. As you say its nothing to with human rights, make stricter laws on hate speech, promoting the likes of ISIS etc if you want to start locking people up, or if they aren't British deporting them.
If you do the you have to be very careful that you aren't creating a situation where you are aiding recruitment. Look at the IRA, when their members started getting locked up in prison it gave them a massive recruitment boost.
That doesn't remove the need to get more police on the streets in the communities.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
But you can't have Nazi flags or make Nazi salutes in Germany and Austria and they have their human rights. You just need to make support for isis and possession of isis flags a criminal offence. Has nothing to do with human rights.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Yet it seems parties and viewpoints that are considered as neo nazism is allowed as long as they dont make direct links/reference to the Nazi regime. Why?
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Well I've just finished reading a book about Neo-Nazism and especially the National Socialist Underground in Germany and essentially the police have been trying to shut them down for ages while the security services have allowed them to rumble on as they have a network of informers inside. Again nothing to do with human rights.
You've not answered my question earlier about which article of the human rights act prevents arrest and trial of terror suspects?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Given your avoidance of answering any questions posed to you on the political threads you really should substitute Liquid for Comedy
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
We could always scrap trident and do away with the armed forces?? Yeah, that'd work!............ wouldn't it??
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Do you think the Palace of Westminster was lacking in Police protection?
Edit: missed the "not" in your sentence, carry on.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
And when the terrorists roll their own messaging app?
What do you actually want WhatsApp to do? Just remove end to end encryption? And when all their customers move to Telegram or another service?
And how do you charge the makers of a piece of free open source software, or a random Russian kid outside your jurisdiction?
Its just not possible to put the Internet genie back in the bottle. Just like MI5 can't read your mind, despite really wanting to, they can't stop end-to-end encryption. Focusing on peer to peer messaging is a waste of time and resources. Far better to do what we do know, which is try and hack these services in secret so we can spy without them knowing, or use other methods. Besides, most attacks have been planned over unencrpyted messaging that we just didn't intercept, and most attackers are known beforehand. It's really not a detection issue we are having.
If you publicly make these services insecure, they just won't use them.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
That's lefties for ya! I suppose it was spearheaded by Lily Allen!
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You realise May was Home Secretary in 2011, right?
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Yeah that lefty bitch Theresa May got rid of them. I bet you hate getting labeled racist but are happy to brand people lefty.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
I'd rather be called a racist than be a terrorist sympathiser like you!
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Ha! So we're name calling now? You're the hight of intelligent debate.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Thats it, pick up on the small typing error rather than address the overlying point.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
What overlying point?
The point where I assumed the person who changed the laws was a leftie? Or the one where you indirectly called me a racist so I responded?
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
dancers lance
Well-Known Member
I would be interested to now what part(s) of the Human Rights Act, if a change to be made, are frightening people so much?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
You're assuming he knows what a Home Secretary is.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
So why don't we pass new laws tomorrow which make it easier to arrest and prosecute terrorists? Make it so police have more arrest powers and so less evidence is required in court cases of this nature, if you are suspected as a terror threat the burden of proof should be to prove you are innocent and not a threat. Not the other way around.
Let's change the law and start rounding up the terror suspects on the list as soon as possible if there are no barriers stopping us.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
If human rights are not a problem then that's great, it means less hoops to jump through.
First law I would pass is to make it illegal for people to hold views related to Islamic extremism and punishable with a minimum of a 5 year sentence even if no direct links to Isis can be made
Second law, similar to first one, they are known to hold Islamic extremism views but there is a direct link to Isis can be shown. So for example they are found in possession of an Isis flag or other Isis related material, or they are found to be colluding with people who are known to be a member of isis. I would make this punishable with a minimum 15 year sentence.
First law I would pass is to make it illegal for people to hold views related to Islamic extremism and punishable with a minimum of a 5 year sentence even if no direct links to Isis can be made
Second law, similar to first one, they are known to hold Islamic extremism views but there is a direct link to Isis can be shown. So for example they are found in possession of an Isis flag or other Isis related material, or they are found to be colluding with people who are known to be a member of isis. I would make this punishable with a minimum 15 year sentence.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
how can you stop someone holding a view?
Stopping them expressing that view is a different issue but you can't monitor what people think.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Institute of fiscal studies...go argue with them!
"The shame of the two big parties’ manifestos is that neither sets out an honest set of choices.”
“It is likely that the Conservatives would either have to resort to tax or borrowing increases to bail out public services under increasing pressure, or would risk presiding over a decline in the quality of some of those services, including the NHS.
“Labour’s commitment to a much bigger public sector would require higher taxes that affect many of us. A bigger state than the one we have been used to is perfectly feasible as many countries have demonstrated, but Labour should not pretend that such a step-change could be funded entirely by a small minority at the very top.”
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Fruitless ambition I am afraid. More likely to be hurt by a mom speeding her 2.4 kids to school in her Transit (because 4x4s aren't big enough to bully the majority of other road users anymore) than by a terrorist.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Nick
Administrator
Surely it depends on the view?
What about going back to the example earlier is if the view was that it is fine to have relationships with children. Should those people be allowed to wander about in playgrounds and by schools for example?
Obviously people aren't mind readers, but if a man was to go on a documentary talking about it all and his family have reported him for it too then surely you would sort it then rather than wait for him to actually commit an offence?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
In that case by talking about it on a documentary he would have expressed the views and have committed a criminal offence. (Using Clint's/skybluebear suggested legal changes)
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Nick
Administrator
Ah I see what you mean now.
Obviously people can't be mind readers, but as soon as it gets reported things should surely be done?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
that's expressing a view, that's different to holding a view.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Well yes, it will only become known that they hold that view if they express it.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
What is your point here?
It sounds a bit like you are saying there is no point in trying to stop terror attacks because you are more likely to die in another another way. But surely you dont mean that as that would be a disgusting view to have.
Should we also stop all research into 99% of all illness, disease and infection because not as many people die from these as the other 1%?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Make a law then and make sure it's reasonable and logistically possible. Possession of a flag, looking at a web page etc etc are fine while it's something you disagree with but what about something you agree with. Debate the law about flags and websites. Is it possible? Will it make things safer. Internment only made things worse with the Ira and ultimately dialogue was the answer
A man finding young children attractive is not against the law, never will be and couldn't be enacted. A man looking at pictures or acting out this attraction breaks the law and will be punished. Is there a progression, yes. There appears to be a progression from thought to action to crime and so it's placing the help/prohibition etc at the right level to avoid victims
There is stuff that can be done without ripping up the hra. Measured, appropriate and considered and part of it costs money and resource will have to be provided
