May will remove parts of human rights act if elected (1 Viewer)

[Nick]

What's actually being proposed to change? The way I read it, it was mainly aimed around terrorism so might be misunderstanding.

Addressing activists in Slough on Tuesday evening, she did not make any specific new policy proposals but envisaged

"I mean longer prison sentences for those convicted of terrorist offences.

"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."

 

---

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Without knowing a full history of Human rights, am I right in saying they came to the forefront globally after ww2. And the catalyst for this was the Holocaust with the extermination and persecution of Jewish people at the hands of the nazis.

Human rights were designed to protect the right of everyone, particularly victims of persecution and minority groups right. Clearly there is a loophole which allows terrorists to hide behind human rights, simply we must close the loophole which allows them to do this.


Or is it their human right to believe everyone elses human rights should be removed.

 

[Astute]

Nobody is arguing against using or changing the law to stop these people. They are taking about getting rid of every single persons rights to do it.

Who is?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Again you can stop that by making anything like that illegal. You don't have to remove an entire nation's human rights.

That is what they are saying essentially. But if we make these things illegal, people will just cry we are abusing their human rights or freedom of speech or whatever. Thus in certain cases human right laws need to be changed to allow us to make these things a crime.

 

[Liquid Gold]

That is what they are saying essentially. But if we make these things illegal, people will just cry we are abusing their human rights or freedom of speech or whatever. Thus in certain cases human right laws need to be changed to allow us to make these things a crime.

Which article in the human rights act prevents making these things a criminal act?

 

[pastythegreat]

But without human rights legislation to protect you the government can change what constitutes right and wrong. You living your normal life now could be against the law and you have no right to a fair trial. Lets stop these twats and lock them up but not by trading in your rights. This is the act of an authoritarian government not a forward thinking democracy and it shows how far to the fringes acceptable debate has become.

Tommy Robinson was locked up for inciting hate speech, a crime under the public order act. An act which should be beefed up to lock up hate preachers for a longer sentence. Not take away your human rights.

No, Tommy Robinson was jailed for Tax Fraud!

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

 

[Liquid Gold]

Keir Starmer: UK human rights law does not prevent capture of terrorists

 

[chiefdave]

I'm only concerned about the human rights of the victims to be honest.

How about the victims of Hillsborough? Without the human rights act there wouldn't have been an appeal and the truth wouldn't have come out.

 

[pastythegreat]

1) The same people preaching that terrorism is nothing to do with Islam are also saying if you isolate the Islamic community it will cause more terrorists to be nurtured. Which one is it? As soon as you affiliate with terrorist groups you lose your human rights. No second chances. I don't believe in discriminating against a group of people, but the victims that got murdered at a children's concert are of more of a concern to me than someone who gets a mean stare on a bus.

2) There have been a few attacks since the election was caused. I can see it as a move to win votes of course, but it is also actually the right thing to do. As for the EU, two of the three attackers in London last week traveled here on EU documentation. The media has kept that quiet though...

3) Human rights laws are great, and generally they should be upheld. However, they are clearly being abused in the UK. Look at all the hate preachers roaming the streets. Look at the ISIS fighters coming back to claim benefits (Corbyn actually supports this). They are completely taking the piss. I do not care about someone's human rights if they are a gutless wonder wanting to destroy our people and way of life. I am absolutely amazed anyone else doesn't feel the same.

4) The victims of Manchester and London, and there families will no doubt feel as if attacks like this should never happen again. This isn't about the 'evil' and 'nasty' right wing, this is just common sense. If someone has ties to terrorist organisations that is their final strike. No second chances. If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. If you have, you can get the fuck out of society.

This is all getting worse because we have pandered, because we have been soft, and because anyone that has stood up to this has been branded 'racist' or 'Islamophobic'. Letting a terrorist keep their human rights so they can organise/carry out more attacks or radicalise others is actually completely fucking insane.

Some very good points very well put.
Far too many people are far too quick to use the "racist" tag for people who appose an extreme Islam. Most Muslims practice there religion peacefully and carry on normal life along side everybody else. These aren't the people they are targeting with law changes and human rights changes. It's the nut jobs that think it's their right to harm/kill people because of their sick idea of what Islam is.
If anybody is more offended by me apposing extreme Islam than they are buy somebody killing kids at a pop concert in the name of Islam, then they need to have a long hard look in the mirror!

In terms of changing the rights and laws, people will ALWAYS fight the state as it's their rights! But sometimes things need to be done for good. If you have nothing to hide then it shouldn't worry you about changes. Stop and search laws changed because of "unfair treatment"! But these things stop people carrying knifes and ultimately stop people dying! If you want to carry a knife, don't moan when you get searched, if you don't then why be against a search? It could ultimately save your life one day! For the vast majority of law abiding citizens these rights don't matter anyway!

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

 

[Sub]

Woman injured after stabbing - BBC News

another stabbing in london ??

 

[ajsccfc]

Counter-terrorism police are aware of the attack but are not treating it as a terrorist incident

It's a worrying thing to be almost relieved at the prospect of a regular attempted murder

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

It's a worrying thing to be almost relieved at the prospect of a regular attempted murder

Birmingham Mail were reporting three women did the stabbing shouting 'Allah'.

 

[ajsccfc]

Ah. Nice minute while it lasted

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

This

Keir Starmer: UK human rights law does not prevent capture of terrorists

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Keir Starmer: UK human rights law does not prevent capture of terrorists

Clearly something is preventing it as we have thousands of terror suspects allowed to walk free until they commit murder.

 

[Philosoraptor]

Difficult this one to say the least.

In Ancient Antiquity when the Roman Republic was being attacked they went from being a Republic to a Tyranny to defend themselves. Probably the only time in history a Tyranny has been a success, well all the way till Caesar crossed the Rubicon to grab power. Got to love the Empires.

Anyway,

Utilitarian ethics, is the idea in which social policy is meant to be formed around. However, there are many dangers to it.

Imagine two wolves and a sheep having a vote on what to have for dinner.

Utility would suggest if a policy came about where the two wolves should eat the sheep then this would be okay because it brings about the best possible outcome for the group.

Utility does not recognise the individual rights of the sheep so we need to bring in some checks and measures to make sure the group doesn't abuse the individual rights of entities.

This analogy is the reason why we have Human Rights for, so Governments can't abuse the Human Rights of individuals when working out what is best for Society.

This is just about the scariest thing I have heard from the Conservatives for a long time.

In most western societies Human Rights are the last things to go before we move back into a state of nature and admit this recent fling we have had with building cities and societies through a social contract to be a unmitigating disaster.

Human Rights are as close to an objective truth as can be.

 

[fernandopartridge]

It's embarrassing that she's now trying to pin the blame for the attacks on the human rights act. Yes, the human rights act might protect those it really shouldn't, but it also protects the rest of us. You can see what a machine politician May is, Christ knows what sort of draconian nonsense she'd come up with given half a chance.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I've never been stopped and searched, I've never had my house raided, I've never been dragged off the street for no reason.

If I started knocking about with terrorists and going to see people speak who encourage terrorism I couldn't really moan if that changed could I? Same if I started Googling how to make bombs or spending hours watching ISIS propaganda.

Again, I'm not talking about a random muslim guy who goes about his business the same as everybody else. I'm talking people who always seem to be "known" to agencies.

ie.

A man on TV praying to an ISIS flag who has been reported by people from his community and has history of kicking off with them for not being extreme.
The man from Italy who is also known to have terrorist links.
The Manchester bomber who was reported multiple times and nothing happened.

Should somebody who looks at child porn or has the mindset that its ok to abuse children be allowed to wander around parks even though they hadn't actually abused a child yet but are suspected and likely to?

Nick, you're implying that those terrorists weren't raided because of the human rights acts, which of course is utter bollocks.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Fuck it, lets get rid of it. A bullet in the head in an internment camp would be sweet release from being a left wing CCFC fan.

 

[torchomatic]

Just listen to Keir Starmer. Someone who knows what he's on about.

 

[clint van damme]

Clearly something is preventing it as we have thousands of terror suspects allowed to walk free until they commit murder.

the loss of 20,000 police and the lifting of control orders to allow known Islamists to go and fight in Libya and Syria and then return to the UK may have contributed.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Keir Starmer: UK human rights law does not prevent capture of terrorists

beat me to it

 

[chiefdave]

 

[Westendlad]

Fuck it, lets get rid of it. A bullet in the head in an internment camp would be sweet release from being a left wing CCFC fan.

Sounds good to me..........

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

the loss of 20,000 police and the lifting of control orders to allow known Islamists to go and fight in Libya and Syria and then return to the UK may have contributed.

So that is what prevented us locking up the london terrorist when he was going around the public park with an isis flag on national tv? Is it that there weren't enough police or was he protected by human rights law which give him freedom of expression and thought

 

[chiefdave]

So that is what prevented us locking up the london terrorist when he was going around the public park with an isis flag on national tv?

May was told the risk of the cuts, specifically that it would leave the country open to terror attacks. Told the experts they were wrong and scaremongering and went ahead with the cuts. Then there's attacks. Can you not see a link?

 

[Westendlad]

May was told the risk of the cuts, specifically that it would leave the country open to terror attacks. Told the experts they were wrong and scaremongering and went ahead with the cuts. Then there's attacks. Can you not see a link?

Stick a copper on every corner of every street and it would not stop these losers attacking innocent people. Can you not see a link...

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Stick a copper on every corner of every street and it would not stop these losers attacking innocent people. Can you not see a link...

Where does the money come from?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

May was told the risk of the cuts, specifically that it would leave the country open to terror attacks. Told the experts they were wrong and scaremongering and went ahead with the cuts. Then there's attacks. Can you not see a link?

I don't disagree that they need more man power.

but I also see a link between people who were known to security services and were still allowed to plan and carry out these attacks.

After it was known this man was an isis supporter, what prevented us hauling his ass to jail? Was it that they didn't have enough man power and the lack of staff meant we couldn't spare the time to go and arrest him, or was it that they couldn't do so because they didn't have the authority to do so? The laws need changing and if that violates his human rights, then they need changing as well.

 

[Grendel]

Where does the money come from?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Corbynomics

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

the loss of 20,000 police and the lifting of control orders to allow known Islamists to go and fight in Libya and Syria and then return to the UK may have contributed.

Don't know much about control orders and how they fit in with human rights, it could be argued if he is prevented from returning and has partner/kids/parents/siblings in the UK that he has been living with for however many years then you are denying his human right to a family life which is part of the act.

 

[Westendlad]

Where does the money come from?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Printing machines...Think Bank of England prints all the notes ?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Interesting reading about when the control orders for terror suspects were scrapped in 2011.

Before they were scrapped, terror suspects who couldn't be prosecuted or deported could be monitored by electronic tag, curfew imposed, restricted from going to locations where other known terror suspects and from travelling abroad as well as not being allowed to use a mobile phone or internet. If they breached these they got a 5 year jail sentence. It was replaced by another system where basically they have freedom to do whatever they want but are supposed to be under greater surveillance, which clearly is not working.

Time to bring them back at the very minimum?

No surprise that they were removed because people were worried it infringed their human rights

 

[Nick]

Nick, you're implying that those terrorists weren't raided because of the human rights acts, which of course is utter bollocks.

No, I'm just saying they shouldn't have any human rights.

Tag them, bug their houses, lock them up etc.

I'm not sure it could have been made any more obvious so why is he allowed to wonder about unnoticed?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Thanks for the useful info, clint van damme. having read up briefly, I agree the lifting of control orders was definitely a big mistake, it seems they were removed as people were worried it violated their human rights as I alluded to in my previous response to you.

Bring them back and who gives a stuff if a few groups get upset by them