M15 chief wants more surveillance powers.

[DemolitionRed]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/17/mi5-chief-calls-for-more-up-to-date-surveillance-powers

I smell another assault on privacy on its way. The pet poodle of the government has spoken

[user104658]

This + ridiculous propaganda "tweets" with the prime ministers name all over them.

I'm seriously worried about the world my daughters are going to be growing up in.

[arista]

But its in order to stop
Terrorists killing us in the UK

[user104658]

But its in order to stop
Terrorists killing us in the UK

Partially, and that's the justification, but it'll be used for other things too.

[kirklancaster]

I'm all for them having as much power as they need to defeat the very real threat to the continuation of our democratic way of life. Those of us not planning on beheading anyone or blowing up innocent people have nothing to fear.

[Livia]

They don't want more powers so they can read your emails or listen in to your boring phone calls. They barely have enough time and resources to handle all the real intelligence they get and snooping on innocent citizens isn't part of the plan. They want more powers because we live in a very dangerous time and we're fighting a ruthless enemy and if you think that's propaganda, then you really are burying your head in the sand.

Furthermore, I think that referring to the security services as the 'government's pet poodle' is really quite insulting, considering the amount of crap they've stopped in the past and, hopefully, will be able to continue to stop in the future.

[DemolitionRed]

Partially, and that's the justification, but it'll be used for other things too.

Yes of course it will.

This is about taking away yet more of a civil liberties and at this rate us UK citizens are going to have the same sort of blanket surveillance that Iran and China have. This about putting focus on everyone and not just suspected terrorists and criminals.

Of course we need a surveillance system in place which can root out dangerous criminals but we already have that. This new law is about snooping on everyone and feels disturbingly close to George Orwell's novel "1984"

Do you really want to live in a control state? I know I don't and neither did Cameron back in 2009 when he said, "Today we are in danger of living in a control state. Every month over 1,000 surveillance operations are carried out. The tentacles of the state can even rifle through your bins for juicy information."

[Crimson Dynamo]

they need all the help they can get

[arista]

Partially, and that's the justification, but it'll be used for other things too.


No it will not


All data about a Bomb or Machine Gun attack
in the UK
and already MI5 has stopped some.

[kirklancaster]

I've never been bothered by the 'CCTV' cameras some people complain about, and I've never been bothered by MI5, MI6, or Special Branch or any other of our security Services, so I really do not understand the objections.

[user104658]

I've never been bothered by the 'CCTV' cameras some people complain about, and I've never been bothered by MI5, MI6, or Special Branch or any other of our security Services, so I really do not understand the objections.
This is entirely unsurprising, Kirk.

[DemolitionRed]

:shrug: WHAT?????

If these are not 'very dangerous times' then what are?

Dangerous times for who Kirk? Why are they dangerous times?

All those people fleeing Syria are living in dangerous times.
All the none IS supporters living in Syria are living in dangerous times.

I live in London. I don't step out of my door with a weapon in my bag just in case. I don't pass a Muslim on the street and hold my breath and I don't do anything differently now than I did a year ago or the year before that.

Should I feel in danger of suffocation every time I jump onto the crowded tube? or should I be cautious about eating in a middle eastern restaurant just in case they decide to poison me? Should I walk the long way home because the short cut down the alleyway could get me mugged by the local thugs, or should I be watching out for that woman who may be hiding a knife under her hijab with the intention of decapitating me?

I don't ever read right wing papers and so I don't know what am I supposed to be frightened of?

[user104658]

Muslims. And Corbyn. OR ARE THEY ONE AND THE SAME. omg omg omg

[kirklancaster]

This is entirely unsurprising, Kirk.

No - I KNOW the reasons which people cite for their objections to every form of increased security our services implement, I just do not understand them because they are nonsense.

As Livia said; Do you REALLY all believe that they have nothing better to do with their overstretched resourcees than poke and pry into the mundane 'doings' of Fred and Hilda Nobody?

And it would pay to remember that our Security Services are not requesting any extra powers because they DESIRE them - they are being compelled to do so by NEED, thanks to IS and other terrorists.

[user104658]

That's not the point kirk, it's not about whether or not they'll use them, it's a out the fact that they HAVE them and the precedent it sets.

If they truly are needed then that's still depressing... It's not "fine".

[Crimson Dynamo]

TS you need to up your surveillance powers to find out who Mrs TS is texting the dead of night

[bots]

its not a simple 1 dimensional issue. Civil liberties will be eroded by extending surveillance measures and at some point (different for everyone) the boundaries of acceptability will be exceeded. If we live in a truly free society which is what our powers that be are supposed to aspire to, then they have already sacrificed liberties in the name of security.

Does security infringe on how we carry out our day to day lives, no not yet. Does living in fear that a madman will shoot up a theatre or bomb public places infringe on or freedom, no not yet. The latter is probably still true because the security measures we have are successful, we know many threats have been thwarted before terrorists got a chance to go wild. What would have happened without those surveillance measures?

So, we have a balance at the moment that seems to be quite effective. If terrorists start beating the current measures, and they start to become successful, then we should up our game and increase surveillance, but at the moment, as terrorists have had very little success here, I personally don't see a need for any further measures.

[kirklancaster]

its not a simple 1 dimensional issue. Civil liberties will be eroded by extending surveillance measures and at some point (different for everyone) the boundaries of acceptability will be exceeded. If we live in a truly free society which is what our powers that be are supposed to aspire to, then they have already sacrificed liberties in the name of security.

Does security infringe on how we carry out our day to day lives, no not yet. Does living in fear that a madman will shoot up a theatre or bomb public places infringe on or freedom, no not yet. The latter is probably still true because the security measures we have are successful, we know many threats have been thwarted before terrorists got a chance to go wild. What would have happened without those surveillance measures?

So, we have a balance at the moment that seems to be quite effective. If terrorists start beating the current measures, and they start to become successful, then we should up our game and increase surveillance, but at the moment, as terrorists have had very little success here, I personally don't see a need for any further measures.

Once again BitOnTheSlide, an excellent post which I agree with. However, as to the NEED to increase the Security Services powers, I am prone to trust that they know a lot more than we do as to any reasons which renders such extra powers necessary.

[kirklancaster]

Muslims. And Corbyn. OR ARE THEY ONE AND THE SAME. omg omg omg

:shrug: Who said this? Especially on this thread?

[user104658]

TS you need to up your surveillance powers to find out who Mrs TS is texting the dead of night
I've got it narrowed down to 2 people. It's either Kirk, or Abu Hamza.

[user104658]

:shrug: Who said this? Especially on this thread?
Me. It's a genuine concern that I have.

[Kizzy]

Hang on...
'The investigatory powers legislation is expected to include powers to require internet and phone companies to collect and store for 12 months the browsing histories of customers along with detailed records of voice calls, messaging and text services.'

That's not 'suspects' that's everyone

[Tom4784]

Nobody should endorse Security firms getting even more authority to invade our privacy. It annoys me how people are so willing to throw away their rights at the mention of terrorists or peadophiles and how naive they are to think that's all it would be used for.

[Kizzy]

Civil liberties, privacy, workers rights...owt else for this tory vortex?

[Ninastar]

They don't want more powers so they can read your emails or listen in to your boring phone calls. They barely have enough time and resources to handle all the real intelligence they get and snooping on innocent citizens isn't part of the plan. They want more powers because we live in a very dangerous time and we're fighting a ruthless enemy and if you think that's propaganda, then you really are burying your head in the sand.

Furthermore, I think that referring to the security services as the 'government's pet poodle' is really quite insulting, considering the amount of crap they've stopped in the past and, hopefully, will be able to continue to stop in the future.

Beautifully well said. As always :kiss:

[user104658]

Hang on...
'The investigatory powers legislation is expected to include powers to require internet and phone companies to collect and store for 12 months the browsing histories of customers along with detailed records of voice calls, messaging and text services.'

That's not 'suspects' that's everyone
Bleh. Might finally be time to shell out for a VPN subscription.

[Livia]

Nobody should endorse Security firms getting even more authority to invade our privacy. It annoys me how people are so willing to throw away their rights at the mention of terrorists or peadophiles and how naive they are to think that's all it would be used for.

We're talking at our security services, not security firms.

[bots]

Hang on...
'The investigatory powers legislation is expected to include powers to require internet and phone companies to collect and store for 12 months the browsing histories of customers along with detailed records of voice calls, messaging and text services.'

That's not 'suspects' that's everyone

That one is already in force. Internet service providers must store internet history. Also, I can already look up who I called on the phone going back ages. So, again, this isn't anything over and above powers already in force

[Livia]

its not a simple 1 dimensional issue. Civil liberties will be eroded by extending surveillance measures and at some point (different for everyone) the boundaries of acceptability will be exceeded. If we live in a truly free society which is what our powers that be are supposed to aspire to, then they have already sacrificed liberties in the name of security.

Does security infringe on how we carry out our day to day lives, no not yet. Does living in fear that a madman will shoot up a theatre or bomb public places infringe on or freedom, no not yet. The latter is probably still true because the security measures we have are successful, we know many threats have been thwarted before terrorists got a chance to go wild. What would have happened without those surveillance measures?

So, we have a balance at the moment that seems to be quite effective. If terrorists start beating the current measures, and they start to become successful, then we should up our game and increase surveillance, but at the moment, as terrorists have had very little success here, I personally don't see a need for any further measures.

The emboldened bit kind of answers your final paragraph. And actually we don't know how many threats have been thwarted, we, the public, have no idea how many.

[Kizzy]

They need to vet all the MPs calls and emails asap to avoid any 'unpleasantness' no wonder the rush to get this through before Fernbridge/ Fairbank/midland winkles out any more...

[Tom4784]

We're talking at our security services, not security firms.

You say tomato...

The phrasing is irrelevant.

[Livia]

You say tomato...

The phrasing is irrelevant.

No, they're two entirely different entities. MI5, MI6 etc. aren't the same as G4S.

And actually, I say tormaytoo, just to be different.

[user104658]

It's only a matter of time before various security issues are offloaded to private firms anyway, surely. Tories have trouser-busting boners for privatisation.

[bots]

Bleh. Might finally be time to shell out for a VPN subscription.

If you do that, it highlights that you are using methods to hide what you are doing and then you become more of a person of interest :laugh:

[Livia]

It's only a matter of time before various security issues are offloaded to private firms anyway, surely. Tories have trouser-busting boners for privatisation.

I can't see that flying. Although if Corbyn ever gets in they'll probably go the same way as our membership of NATO will. Of course that will make it easier for his chums in Hamas and Hezbollah to get in.

[user104658]

I can't see that flying. Although if Corbyn ever gets in they'll probably go the same way as our membership of NATO will. Of course that will make it easier for his chums in Hamas and Hezbollah to get in.
And the Sith.

[Livia]

If you do that, it highlights that you are using methods to hide what you are doing and then you become more of a person of interest :laugh:

I can't see TS ever being described as a person of interest.

I'm kidding. I AM!

[Livia]

And the Sith.

According to the last census they're here already... and strangely enough, mostly in Scotland.

[user104658]

If you do that, it highlights that you are using methods to hide what you are doing and then you become more of a person of interest [emoji23]
Nah I drive around until I find an unsecured WiFi signal for the REALLY dodgy stuff.

[user104658]

i can't see ts ever being described as a person of interest.

i'm kidding. I am!
words can be like fists

[Livia]

words can be like fists

You know I love you and find you endlessly fascinating, don't you. You crazy leftie.

[user104658]

You crazy leftie.

Ebonyyy, and ivoryyy, except you're a jeeew, not blaaack , but close enooough.

[joeysteele]

Nobody should endorse Security firms getting even more authority to invade our privacy. It annoys me how people are so willing to throw away their rights at the mention of terrorists or peadophiles and how naive they are to think that's all it would be used for.

This,pretty much for me.

I certainly wouldn't trust this particular govt.(or indeed likely any other of any party), really to make sure true safeguards were in place to 'routine' activities.

[Livia]

Ebonyyy, and ivoryyy, except you're a jeeew, not blaaack , but close enooough.

Christmas No.1

[smudgie]

I am quite happy for them to check my Tesco shopping list if it keeps us safe.
They are not interested in us boring normal people going about our normal boring lives, it is to stop the likes of the idiot jailed today for 8 years

[user104658]

It amazes me how many people would be willing slaves, so long as they're comfortable slaves.

[Kizzy]

Store the records of the entire population.. And how long will it be before they are dipping into that info for everything?

[bots]

Store the records of the entire population.. And how long will it be before they are dipping into that info for everything?

They will be, that's the big downside. Remember "a previous government" wanted all our medical details held in a giant system too, and were negotiating to sell that information overseas. We don't have privacy, many young people have already sacrificed their privacy for life by using social media. Once you are in the systems, its already too late.

[Kizzy]

They will be, that's the big downside. Remember "a previous government" wanted all our medical details held in a giant system too, and were negotiating to sell that information overseas. We don't have privacy, many young people have already sacrificed their privacy for life by using social media. Once you are in the systems, its already too late.

Yep they were planning the big NHS garage sale and needed to know the most profitable areas.

[DemolitionRed]

It amazes me how many people would be willing slaves, so long as they're comfortable slaves.

That is chillingly close to something Orwell once said!

[Tom4784]

No, they're two entirely different entities. MI5, MI6 etc. aren't the same as G4S.

And actually, I say tormaytoo, just to be different.

Again, you knew what I meant.

[letmein]

The naivety of 99% of the people here. Orwell was a genius.

[Tom4784]

I am quite happy for them to check my Tesco shopping list if it keeps us safe.
They are not interested in us boring normal people going about our normal boring lives, it is to stop the likes of the idiot jailed today for 8 years

It's not going to help, surrendering our rights to privacy won't help us put an end to terrorism. They're just using the ol' T word to scare people into agreeing to give up their rights.

[Kizzy]

The naivety of 99% of the people here. Orwell was a genius.

Sure was, prophetic.

[bots]

It's not going to help, surrendering our rights to privacy won't help us put an end to terrorism. They're just using the ol' T word to scare people into agreeing to give up their rights.

I agree that it certainly can lead to us surrendering our privacy. I also think that linking terrorists in with paedophiles is very dodgy and trying to grab public support.


It may be we need better methods of detection, but that should be evaluated if we are actually subjected to further attacks in the future, where proper lessons can be learned. At the moment, i don't see a need for it.

[DemolitionRed]

I agree that it certainly can lead to us surrendering our privacy. I also think that linking terrorists in with paedophiles is very dodgy and trying to grab public support.


It may be we need better methods of detection, but that should be evaluated if we are actually subjected to further attacks in the future, where proper lessons can be learned. At the moment, i don't see a need for it.

Cameron linked those same words last year when he gave a speech about exciting the European Court of Human rights. In April 2014, the Court of Human Rights told the EU that its directive was illegal and a breach of human rights.

He's just repeating now what he said last year but this time he's doing so by proxy.

[joeysteele]

It's not going to help, surrendering our rights to privacy won't help us put an end to terrorism. They're just using the ol' T word to scare people into agreeing to give up their rights.

Again, I agree.

This is something where once the door is opened to it, then it will be almost impossible to close again.

I'm not in favour of it at all.

[smudgie]

It's not going to help, surrendering our rights to privacy won't help us put an end to terrorism. They're just using the ol' T word to scare people into agreeing to give up their rights.

I really don't think they would be interested in me of mine Dezzy, we are too boring.
I can understand younger people worrying about it, civil liberties and all that, but if just doesn't bother me as an indvidual.:shrug:

[bots]

I really don't think they would be interested in me of mine Dezzy, we are too boring.
I can understand younger people worrying about it, civil liberties and all that, but if just doesn't bother me as an indvidual.:shrug:

The problem is not particularly one piece of information on its own. Its the combination of data that they collect from a now huge resource pool and the fact that it can be used for purposes outside that which it was intended. Also, as no data is safe and secure, it can be fraudulently manipulated meaning that if someone in power decides they want to target an individual, they make the data match the offence they want you to have committed.

[smudgie]

The problem is not particularly one piece of information on its own. Its the combination of data that they collect from a now huge resource pool and the fact that it can be used for purposes outside that which it was intended. Also, as no data is safe and secure, it can be fraudulently manipulated meaning that if someone in power decides they want to target an individual, they make the data match the offence they want you to have committed.

My biggest worry is all the ruddy spam emails I get, no doubt due to people sharing my data.

[Ammi]

..anyways, I don't really know how I feel about the 'more surveillance powers' that MI5 would like to have, I understand both stances and feel that that they're both extremely valid..it's that thing between privacy being invaded and the very real threats to all of us, both in this country and others...and many of these threats we're informed have only remained threats and not actions because of things like surveillance...it would be interesting to know the opinions of families/friends etc who are suffering the very real pain of losing loved ones ...if it could have been prevented/if more surveillance measures for all of us could have prevented it and your real life not be the pain it is now...I suspect though, they may still be quite conflicted but interesting anyway...

[kirklancaster]

Dangerous times for who Kirk? Why are they dangerous times?

All those people fleeing Syria are living in dangerous times.
All the none IS supporters living in Syria are living in dangerous times.

I live in London. I don't step out of my door with a weapon in my bag just in case. I don't pass a Muslim on the street and hold my breath and I don't do anything differently now than I did a year ago or the year before that.

Should I feel in danger of suffocation every time I jump onto the crowded tube? or should I be cautious about eating in a middle eastern restaurant just in case they decide to poison me? Should I walk the long way home because the short cut down the alleyway could get me mugged by the local thugs, or should I be watching out for that woman who may be hiding a knife under her hijab with the intention of decapitating me?

I don't ever read right wing papers and so I don't know what am I supposed to be frightened of?

First of all Red - I cannot believe that you, or anyone else who loves debating, would restrict their research to only 'non-Right Wing' material (if there is such a thing). Surely, one cannot 'engage' if one is not as comprehensively versed as possible in knowledge of the subject?

Secondly, I feel that you are overlooking the fact that you do not feel 'in danger' in this country purely BECAUSE of the sterling work being carried out 24/7 by our Security Services. If our Security Services were not so efficient then I believe you would be seeing a very different picture of life in the UK as far as terrorist bombings and murders are concerned.

I also feel that you are misperceiving the concerns that those of us on here have about any possible links between immigrants and terrorism, because no one is stupid enough to believe that they should fear walking past a Muslim on Kensington High Street or that they will be poisoned by the staff in a 'Middle Eastern' restaurant - that is hysterical and simply not the case.

I don't think that any of us who have concerns about the terrorist threat to the UK are stupid - far from it - but neither are the terrorists who have made no secret of their ultimate aim to 'Islamify' the world and 'reclaim' it for Allah,and they will stop at NOTHING to achieve that goal -- as the well documented events world-wide will attest, and to me personally, it is those among us who deny this very real threat who are stupid.

The trouble is, that I, for one, will NEVER sit back apathetically and allow the stupid among us to decree the Security Policies of the country which I was born in, live in, love and appreciate. I will not allow them to hazard my childrens future or accelerate the demise of the relative freedoms and safety which we enjoy and which some of us take for granted.

Relative freedoms and safety, which again, we continue to enjoy BECAUSE of the tireless work being carried out every second of every day by our Security Services.

We are actually on 'Red Alert' regarding our security status and if our Security Services say that extra powers are now needed to enable them to adequately deal with an increase in the terrorist threat to this country, then
I really cannot see what the problem is.

All this infantile Orwellian B.S. about 'Big Brother' and a prying State is hysterical nonsense - and this hails from the very people who try to ridicule the concerns we have as 'hysterical'.

We have genuine reasons for our concerns, the 'Orwellian' brigade have not.

Do you really believe that IF the state WANTED to pry and gather any information on any or all of us, that they would not just go right on and COLLATE such data WITHOUT 'asking' for 'permission' and without making it public knowledge?

Finally Red, when you ask; "Why are they dangerous times? " - I could give the answer in two simple letters; 'IS', but better to feast your eyes on this:


2000 1 June: Real IRA bomb on Hammersmith Bridge, London
2000 20 September: Real IRA fired an RPG-22 at the MI6 HQ in London SIS Building
2001 4 March: The Real IRA detonated a car bomb outside the BBC's main news centre in London. One London Underground worker suffered deep cuts to his eye from flying glass and some damage was caused to the front of the building.[22] (See 2001 BBC bombing)
2001 16 April: Hendon post office bombed by the Real IRA.
2001 6 May: The Real IRA detonated a bomb in a London postal sorting office. One person was injured.[23]
2001 3 August: A Real IRA Bomb in Britain explodes in Ealing, West London, injuring seven people.[24] (See 2001 Ealing bombing)
2001 4 November: Real IRA car bomb in Birmingham[25]
2005 7 July: The 7 July 2005 London bombings conducted by four separate Islamist extremist suicide bombers, killing 56 people and injuring 700.
2007 January - February: The 2007 United Kingdom letter bombs
2007 30 June: 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack perpetrated by Islamist extremists.
2008 22 May: 2008 Exeter attempted bombing by an Islamist extremist, injuring only the perpetrator.
2010-present[edit]
2013 Pavlo Lapshyn attacks. On 29 April, Lapshyn, a Ukrainian student, stabbed Mohammed Saleem, a Birmingham resident to death. He later admitted to police that he wished to start a "race war".[26] Lapshyn later detonated a home-made bomb outside a mosque in Walsall on 21 June. 150 homes were evacuated but no person was injured.[26] On 28 May Lapshyn detonated a second home-made bomb near a mosque in Wolverhampton, and attacked a mosque in Tipton with an improvised explosive device containing nails on 12 July. Friday prayers were delayed that day, and so his intended victims were still inside. Laphsyn was later sentenced to serve a minimum of 40 years.[27][28][29]
2013 22 May: A British soldier, Lee Rigby, was murdered in an attack in Woolwich by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, two Islamist extremists armed with a handgun and a number of bladed implements. Both men were sentenced to life imprisonment, with Adebolajo given a whole life order and Adebowale ordered to serve at least 45 years.[30]

Prevented, failed or aborted attacks

These are attacks which could have constituted a threat to life had they worked or been large enough. Does not include attacks that were merely at a talking stage and were not actually in operation.

1985: Police found 10 grenades, seven petrol bombs and two detonators at the home of former Group Development Director for the British National Party Tony Lecomber after he was injured by a nailbomb that he was carrying to the offices of the Workers' Revolutionary Party. Convicted under the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
1993 23 October: In Reading, Berkshire, an IRA bomb exploded at a signal post near the railway station, some hours after 5 lb (2 kg) of Semtex was found in the toilets of the station. The resulting closure of the railway line and evacuation of the station caused travel chaos for several hours, but no-one was injured.
2000 1 June: Real IRA suspected of planting a high-explosive device attached to a girder under the south side of Hammersmith Bridge which detonated at 4.30am.[31]
2000 17 November: Police arrested Moinul Abedin. His Birmingham house contained bomb-making instructions, equipment, and traces of the explosive HTMD. A nearby lock-up rented by Abedin contained 100 kg of the chemical components of HTMD.[32]
2005 21 July: The 21 July 2005 London bombings, also conducted by four would-be suicide bombers on the public transport, whose bombs failed to detonate.
2006 28 September: Talbot Street bomb-making haul
2007 1 February: The 2007 Plot to behead a British Muslim soldier
2007 29 June: 2007 London car bombs.
2008 27 February: British police thwarted a suspected plot to kill Abdullah of Saudi Arabia during a state visit to Britain in the year 2007 a senior officer said.
2012 June: Five Muslims plotted to bomb an English Defence League rally in Dewsbury but arrived late and were arrested when returning to Birmingham. A sixth was also convicted.[33]
2013 April: As part of Operation Pitsford 11 Muslims are jailed for a plotting terror attack involving suicide Bombers.[34]
Given the nature of counter-terrorism, successes in preventing terrorist attacks in the UK will not always come to light, or not be as heavily promoted as intelligence failures. However, during the Police advocacy of 90 day detention during the Terrorism Act 2006 they produced documents listing all the cases about which they could not go into details.[35]

Arrests, detentions, and other incidents related to the Terrorism Acts[edit]
These are cases where either the Terrorism Acts were invoked, or which the authorities alleged were terrorist in nature at the time. It includes plots that were foiled at an early stage before any materials were actually assembled as well as totally innocent suspects.

2003 5 January: Wood Green ricin plot, where police arrested six Algerian men accused of manufacturing ricin to use for a poison attack on the London underground. No poison was found,[36][37] and all men were acquitted of all terror charges, except for Kamel Bourgass who stabbed four police officers during his arrest in Manchester several days later. He was convicted of the murder of the officer he killed (the others he stabbed survived). He was also convicted of plotting to poison members of the public with ricin and other poisons. Two of the suspects in the plot were subsequently convicted of possessing false passports.[38]
2003 October: Andrew Rowe arrested in Dover after being detained as he entered the Channel Tunnel in France.[39] Convicted as a "global terrorist" and sentenced to 15 years in prison on 23 September 2005 on the basis of traces of explosives on a pair of socks and a code translation book.[40]
2004 30 March: Seven men arrested in West Sussex in possession of 600 kg of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, as part of Operation Crevice.
2004 3 August: Fourteen men arrested, but only eight charged in relation to the 2004 Financial buildings plot following the leak of the identity of an Al-Qaeda double-agent. The men possessed detailed plans for attacking financial buildings in the US, but no actual bomb-making equipment. Their leader, Dhiren Barot, pleaded guilty at his trial on 12 October 2006, and was imprisoned for life.
2004 24 September: Four men arrested in the Holiday Inn in Brent Cross trying to buy red mercury, a mythical substance which could purportedly be used to construct a nuclear bomb, from a newspaper reporter.[41] One man was released three days later,[42] while the other three were cleared at their trial on 25 July 2006,[43] during which the jury was told that "whether red mercury does or does not exist is irrelevant".[44]
2005 22 July: The Metropolitan Police killed Jean Charles de Menezes, shooting him seven times in the head at close range on a train over fears of increasingly suspicious behaviour as part of counter-terrorism measure Operation Kratos.
2005 28 July: David Mery arrested at Southwark tube station on suspicion of terrorism for wearing a jacket "too warm for the season" and carrying a bulky rucksack. All charges were dropped on 31 August.[45] It took four more years for the police to apologise for the "unlawful arrest, detention and search of [his] home".[46]
2005 28 September: Walter Wolfgang, who had been ejected from the Labour Party Conference, was briefly held under Terrorism Act 2000 powers when he attempted to go back in.
2005 22 December: Abu Bakr Mansha, described by his barrister as an "utter incompetent", was accused of planning to murder a British soldier who had served in the Iraq War, and convicted under the Terrorism Act for possessing a document that was "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". He was sentenced to 6 years.
2006 2 June: The 2 June 2006 Forest Gate raid (on a house in Forest Gate) saw the arrest of two suspects, one who was shot in the shoulder, on charges of conspiring to release a chemical weapon in the form of suicide vest. The suspects were cleared of suspicion and released days later.
2006 10 August: The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot to blow up 10 planes flying from Heathrow saw the arrest of 24 people from their homes in Britain, chaos at the airports as security measures were put in place and numerous high-level statements from US and UK officials. 8 people were put on trial, and 3 found guilty of conspiracy to murder. It was shown at their trial how bottles of liquid could be made into effective bombs. Since this incident, carriage of liquids in hand luggage on aircraft has been restricted to very small amounts. Rashid Rauf, suspected to have been the link between the UK plotters and Pakistan, escaped to Pakistan where he was arrested, but escaped again on his way to an extradition hearing. It was reported that he was killed in a US airstrike in North Waziristan in November 2008.[47]
2006 23 August: The 2006 Cheetham Hill terrorism arrests, where four men were arrested in the Manchester vicinity over the course of a month, and charged with financing terrorism.
2006 1 September: The Jameah Islameah School in Sussex was cordoned off for over three weeks and searched by a hundred police officers. Twelve men were arrested as part of the operation as they ate in a Chinese restaurant in London.
2007 1 November: Police searching for indecent images of children arrested British People's Party local organiser Martyn Gilleard in Goole, East Riding of Yorkshire under the Terrorism Act, over explosives found in his home. He was subsequently charged with possession of material for terrorist purposes and collection of information useful to a terrorist, and also pleaded guilty to possessing 39,000 indecent images. He was jailed for 16 years.[48][49][49][50][51]
2008 14 May: The Nottingham Two were arrested and detained for six days under the Terrorism Act 2000. A postgraduate student had downloaded a 140-page English translation of an Al-Qaeda document from the United States Department of Justice website for his PhD research on militant Islam. He sent it to a friend in the Modern Language department, for printing. Both were cleared of terrorism-related offences, but the friend was immediately re-arrested on immigration grounds.[52][53][54][55]
2008 14 September: Oxford graduate Stephen Clarke arrested after someone thought they saw him taking a photograph of a sealed man-hole cover outside the central public library in Manchester. He was arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, held for 36 hours while his house and computer were searched, and then released without charge. No photographs of man-hole covers were found.[56]
2009 13 February: 9 men arrested on the M65 motorway under section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000. 6 were kept hand-cuffed in the back of a van for seven hours. The remaining 3 were detained for six days. No one was charged. [7]
On 19 September 2011 West Midlands Police arrested a woman who lived in the Alum Rock area of Birmingham. Salma Kabal, 22, appeared in court on 16 November 2011 accused of failing to inform police that her husband, Ashik Ali, planned to kill himself. The official charge was that she “knew or believed might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism".[57]
On 15 November 2011 West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit arrested four people at their homes who were from Sparkhill Birmingham, on suspicion of conducting terrorist offences. The four men appeared in court in Westminster London on 19 November 2011 charged with terrorism offences. They were named as Khobaib Hussain, Ishaaq Hussain and Shahid Kasam Khan, all 19, and Naweed Mahmood Ali, 24. They were charged with fundraising for terrorist purposes and for travelling to Pakistan for terrorist training.[58]
2012 28 June: The two men, aged 18 and 32, were arrested at separate residential addresses in east London, by officers from the Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism Command, at 7am on Thursday. It was believed the men were involved in a bomb plot concerning the London 2012 Summer Olympic Games. A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "At approximately 07:00 hrs today, Thursday June 28, officers from the counter-terrorism command arrested two men under the Terrorism Act 2000 on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The men were arrested at separate residential addresses in east London. Both addresses are currently being searched under the Terrorism Act 2000".[59]

Dangerous times? Thank God for our Security Services.

[kirklancaster]

It amazes me how many people would be willing slaves, so long as they're comfortable slaves.

:joker::joker::joker: Please stop with the hysterics and hyperbole T.S. -- 'Slaves'?

I have no manacles or shackles. I can go where I want, do what I want. Eat and drink what I want.

You need to look very, very closely at the many countries around this fractured world where THEIR Security Services and Governments were not as diligent or efficient as ours to see the REAL meaning of SLAVERY.

SLAVERY in its TRUE sense - a life SHACKLED by fear and trepidation. Not knowing if you will be beheaded today for simply being the wrong Nationality, Religion or Caste.

Not knowing if you will be kidnapped, raped, then sold off into real sex SLAVERY simply for being female.

Not knowing whether you are going to be thrown from the top of a high building simply because you are Gay.

Stop please T.S. - I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[user104658]

:joker::joker::joker: Please stop with the hysterics and hyperbole T.S. -- 'Slaves'?

I have no manacles or shackles. I can go where I want, do what I want. Eat and drink what I want.


Yes you can. Do you know why? Because luckily for us, our forefathers believed strongly in civil liberties and fought hard, and fearlessly, to secure that freedom.

And now a few hundred years later, here we are, slowly selling those freedoms, accepting more and more government surveillance and control, in exchange for security and comfort. Like a bunch of big, fat, lazy labradors.

As has been mentioned, a big part of the Tory campaign 6 years ago was them hammering Labour for being a nanny state, for mollycoddling and nannying citizens. Remember the proposed mandatory citizen ID cards? Remember how much of a stink Cameron's Tory opposition made about those in the name of freedom? And yet here they are, merrily clawing away at exactly the same things.

It's not this one proposal. It's the slow, steady grinding effect of a proposal here and a proposal there, which will see this country - in a few relatively short decades - a sad little ant farm controlled entirely by fear.

[Ammi]

Yes you can. Do you know why? Because luckily for us, our forefathers believed strongly in civil liberties and fought hard, and fearlessly, to secure that freedom.

And now a few hundred years later, here we are, slowly selling those freedoms, accepting more and more government surveillance and control, in exchange for security and comfort. Like a bunch of big, fat, lazy labradors.

As has been mentioned, a big part of the Tory campaign 6 years ago was them hammering Labour for being a nanny state, for mollycoddling and nannying citizens. Remember the proposed mandatory citizen ID cards? Remember how much of a stink Cameron's Tory opposition made about those in the name of freedom? And yet here they are, merrily clawing away at exactly the same things.

It's not this one proposal. It's the slow, steady grinding effect of a proposal here and a proposal there, which will see this country - in a few relatively short decades - a sad little ant farm controlled entirely by fear.

..I do completely understand this as well, which is why also why my thoughts are not completely formed yet...but it's still though an extreme I think to think that we're all slaves and willing slaves for comfort because comfort doesn't come into it and 'slaves' doesn't come into it either...lives being lost is not comfort/potentially lives being saved is not comfort ..a deep fear from some people is nothing to do with comfort...whatever yours or my thoughts are/it's just not so black and white, type thing/virtually nothing is...and one extreme or the other...more surveillance for all and everyone..or none at all because of the privacy invasion and loss of freedom that has been fought for..

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=Toy Soldier;8156278]Yes you can. Do you know why? Because luckily for us, our forefathers believed strongly in civil liberties and fought hard, and fearlessly, to secure that freedom.

/QUOTE]

And which wars were these then T.S of which you so surprisingly approve - in direct contrast to your normal stance on our deployment of troops?

Incidentally, I need no lecture on what our 'forefathers fought for' there being 6 generations of British Military Service in my family.

[lostalex]

Well the US increased our surveillance after 9/11 and we haven't had any major terror attacks since, so it seems like it works.

The last one we had was boston, and only 4 people died, compared to 3,000 on 9/11 and hundreds in oaklahoma. The government seems to be doing a good job here.

[kirklancaster]

Well the US increased our surveillance after 9/11 and we haven't had any major terror attacks since, so it seems like it works.

So true Alex.

[user104658]

[QUOTE=Toy Soldier;8156278]Yes you can. Do you know why? Because luckily for us, our forefathers believed strongly in civil liberties and fought hard, and fearlessly, to secure that freedom.

/QUOTE]

And which wars were these then T.S of which you so surprisingly approve - in direct contrast to your normal stance on our deployment of troops?

Incidentally, I need no lecture on what our 'forefathers fought for' there being 6 generations of British Military Service in my family.
Says more about you that when I talk of our forefathers fighting for things, you automatically assume I mean "the military" and "in wars".

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=kirklancaster;8156332]
Says more about you that when I talk of our forefathers fighting for things, you automatically assume I mean "the military" and "in wars".

Well perhaps you will indulge me then and expound?

[user104658]

Well perhaps you will indulge me then and expound?
I'm talking about normal people tirelessly and peacefully scraping those rights together over time, hundreds of years, and now stupid scared sheeple merrily waving them off down the river over mere decades because they are afraid. One of the goals of terrorism that has, tragically, already succeeded.

[kirklancaster]

I'm talking about normal people tirelessly and peacefully scraping those rights together over time, hundreds of years, and now stupid scared sheeple merrily waving them off down the river over mere decades because they are afraid. One of the goals of terrorism that has, tragically, already succeeded.

How did they scrape such rights over time?

And I for one, am not a 'stupid scared sheep', just because I am aware of the very real threat terrorist pose.

Name me ONE single country where the plague that is Islamic Extremism has been ALLOWED to become dominant which has now a more ordered, civilised, safe, liberal way of life.

The alarmist, hysterical 'Orwellian' protests from the Extremist Left Wing - yes Left Wing - are pure B.S and may NEVER happen and the only dystopian future DEFINITELY awaiting the UK if we are NOT vigilant, is that which other once relatively free countries now suffer at the hands of Islamic Extremist terrorists whose very imnhuman yoke they are now so unfortunately under.

[user104658]

How did they scrape such rights over time?

And I for one, am not a 'stupid scared sheep', just because I am aware of the very real threat terrorist pose.

Name me ONE single country where the plague that is Islamic Extremism has been ALLOWED to become dominant which has now a more ordered, civilised, safe, liberal way of life.

The alarmist, hysterical 'Orwellian' protests from the Extremist Left Wing - yes Left Wing - are pure B.S and may NEVER happen and the only dystopian future DEFINITELY awaiting the UK if we are NOT vigilant, is that which other once relatively free countries now suffer at the hands of Islamic Extremist terrorists whose very imnhuman yoke they are now so unfortunately under.
You're one of the most fearful people I've ever encountered, kirk.

[kirklancaster]

You're one of the most fearful people I've ever encountered, kirk.

Then you do not know me T.S. Concern and Awareness are totally different from Fear and Hysteria.

[user104658]

Then you do not know me T.S. Concern and Awareness are totally different from Fear and Hysteria.
Yes they are. And if it's not how you are, then you're not coming across as you intend. For example, you and Livia share many views on many things. Livia comes across as concerned and aware - you come across as scared, and angry because you are scared.

[kirklancaster]

Yes they are. And if it's not how you are, then you're not coming across as you intend. For example, you and Livia share many views on many things. Livia comes across as concerned and aware - you come across as scared, and angry because you are scared.

:laugh: If that's your diagnosis, then based upon the logic of most of your posts T.S (not ALL of them, as some ARE intelligent and valid) then I am most certainly pleased with myself.

[user104658]

[emoji23] If that's your diagnosis, then based upon the logic of most of your posts T.S (not ALL of them, as some ARE intelligent and valid) then I am most certainly pleased with myself.
I'm just saying kirk, that even the good points that you do have come with so much of this sort of "hulk smash" method that they get buried in the rubble.

In an emotionally detached, do-my-best-to-perch-on-fence discussion I actually can appreciate that there are problems with immigration, that there is a good argument for bunkering down in the UK and keeping me and mine safe and happy for as long as possible. That the current situation in Germany is frankly insane. I see people posting their "all welcome" signs on facebook and think, "no questions asked? Isn't that a little naive?". I've seen points made that I can get on board with but they're stated so abrasively that it's impossible to get to the core of them... Like I've said before, you sometimes come across as wild to the point of being unhinged, and that makes the WHOLE argument questionable. "I find the increase in Islam in the UK concerning, and I worry about where Jeremy Corbyn's policies and associations might lead" vs "ARGH MUSLIMS WITH BOMBS AND THEY BOUGHT THE INGREDIENTS FROM A CORNER STORE RUN BY CORBYN THE CLOSET ARAB!!"... To exaggerate again.

I'm not preaching - I can admit that I have a tendency to hyperbolise too - though more from a place of melancholy... But I am fully aware that that's not a great way to make a point either.

Something to consider, I suppose.

[DemolitionRed]

First of all Red - I cannot believe that you, or anyone else who loves debating, would restrict their research to only 'non-Right Wing' material (if there is such a thing). Surely, one cannot 'engage' if one is not as comprehensively versed as possible in knowledge of the subject?

Secondly, I feel that you are overlooking the fact that you do not feel 'in danger' in this country purely BECAUSE of the sterling work being carried out 24/7 by our Security Services. If our Security Services were not so efficient then I believe you would be seeing a very different picture of life in the UK as far as terrorist bombings and murders are concerned.


Let me clarify what I said; "I don't read right wing newspapers". This doesn't mean I don't read Conservative material or watch the news channels. I rarely read left wing newspapers either because although they are polar opposites; they all have their agenda. The skill is to extract the balanced story and I'm not going to get that from a newspaper that holds a bias.

So the only paper I ever physically buy is the Independent and that's because in my opinion, its the only paper who doesn't tell me how to think.

Lets remember that up until fairly recently there was a very real risk of being killed by a terrorist, especially in central London. During the IRA's indiscriminate bombings campaign our security levels went up enormously, not just by our government but by every individual who had to ride a bus or a tube to work.

I was with my dad crossing the Southwark Bridge in 96 when the Docklands bomb went off. I fully understand how fear feels.

I'm sorry that you took the time to collect all that evidence. The IRA campaign is over and what comes after that is a very short list of Islamic extremists. I could equally give you lengthy and more recent lists of spouse murders, gang attacks, massive child abuse incidents, random murders and rape.

My partner was shot in a drive-past outside a nightclub in Brixton back in 2010 but it barely made the news.

My sister was stabbed 17 times by her ex and she got a brief mention in her local evening post. Both these attacks were by English people who were angry and wanted revenge.

My point is, there is nothing more unpredictable than an angry human. Its our very intuition that warns us other humans can be dangerous and for that very reason we don't walk through deserted underpasses late at night.

Nothing wrong with being vigilant but if we were spend all our time believing our lives are in danger then what miserable lives we would lead.

[Kizzy]

The IRA used coded warnings as an alert to any device, therefore that threat was relatively overt.
Security services already have access to information whenever they deem it necessary as part of RIPA and also the Civil Contingencies Act.
So again why would they have to have the records of everyone when all they have to do is apply for the information, is it because they don't want to apply and would prefer to simply indiscriminately 'snoop'?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/surveillance-and-counter-terrorism

[kirklancaster]

The IRA used coded warnings as an alert to any device, therefore that threat was relatively overt.
Security services already have access to information whenever they deem it necessary as part of RIPA and also the Civil Contingencies Act.
So again why would they have to have the records of everyone when all they have to do is apply for the information, is it because they don't want to apply and would prefer to simply indiscriminately 'snoop'?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/surveillance-and-counter-terrorism

Again - If the Government WANTED to 'snoop' on any of us then they would not need to secure public approval to do so.

I don't know what - if any - personal information is stored on 'secret Government data bases' but I personally could not give a shet. When it comes to someone knowing which porn site I might be masturbating to, or which TV channel I prefer watching, I will take this anyday over the UK being another Syria or The Lebanon.

[Kizzy]

Again - If the Government WANTED to 'snoop' on any of us then they would not need to secure public approval to do so.

I don't know what - if any - personal information is stored on 'secret Government data bases' but I personally could not give a shet. When it comes to someone knowing which porn site I might be masturbating to, or which TV channel I prefer watching, I will take this anyday over the UK being another Syria or The Lebanon.

They do that's the entire issue though... we have the right to a private life without state interference, atm they have to apply to snoop should there be a need, why is this not sufficient it's working perfectly well.
We are not Syria because of these rights.
Countries the world over are crying out for democracy and civil rights and all we want to do in the UK is give them away it seems :/

[Livia]

If it "worked perfectly well" they would not be applying for more powers. They're not doing it for laughs.

[Northern Monkey]

I'm in two minds about this.
On the one hand i think MI5 do an incredible job in stopping terrorist attacks in this country and they should get the resources they need.
However,Where is the limit?
There has to be a limit on the power they are given.Nobody should be all powerful and able to do anything they want.A limit on just how much power we are willing to give our security services needs to be established before they are given free reign to do absolutely anything they choose.People have a right to some privacy.
Yes i believe terrorists give away that right with their acts but what about all the innocent people.Innocent people who have'nt committed any crime?They still should have a right to privacy.
So i think any power that is given should be transparent and there should be a limit set by the people(us) by vote on how much power we want to give to MI5.They are here to serve us remember.

[Livia]

I'm in two minds about this.
On the one hand i think MI5 do an incredible job in stopping terrorist attacks in this country and they should get the resources they need.
However,Where is the limit?
There has to be a limit on the power they are given.Nobody should be all powerful and able to do anything they want.A limit on just how much power we are willing to give our security services needs to be established before they are given free reign to do absolutely anything they choose.People have a right to some privacy.
Yes i believe terrorists give away that right with their acts but what about all the innocent people.Innocent people who have'nt committed any crime?They still should have a right to privacy.
So i think any power that is given should be transparent and there should be a limit set by the people(us) by vote on how much power we want to give to MI5.They are here to serve us remember.

MI5 are not now, nor will they ever be, all powerful. They are governed and restricted by a whole host of laws both British and international. Their sole purpose is the safety and security of the UK.

[Northern Monkey]

MI5 are not now, nor will they ever be, all powerful. They are governed and restricted by a whole host of laws both British and international. Their sole purpose is the safety and security of the UK.

No but i think if no boundary is given to the power they are afforded then it is a slippery slope to that.I mean i'm not a conspiracy guy who thinks they want to create a new world order:laugh: but i think we have to be careful and have a debate on how far we are willing to let this go.

[Kizzy]

If it "worked perfectly well" they would not be applying for more powers. They're not doing it for laughs.

There hasn't been a successful terrorist attempt so what is the measure here? I didn't suggested they were doing it for the comedy.

[kirklancaster]

There hasn't been a successful terrorist attempt so what is the measure here? I didn't suggested they were doing it for the comedy.


This is the whole point. There has not been a successful terrorist attempt for a long time just BECAUSE of our Security Services work, now though, there is a definite new threat which they know about and we do not, which neccessitates them asking for the relevant new powers to deal with it.

[Kizzy]

This is the whole point. There has not been a succsseful terrorist attempt for a long time just BECAUSE of our Security Services work, now though, there is a definite new threat which they know about and we do not, which neccessitates them asking for the relevant new powers to deal with it.

So you're frightened of something, but you don't know what?...

[kirklancaster]

So you're frightened of something, but you don't know what?...

Genuinely - I am frightened of NOTHING on this planet. I have never said anywhere that I am frightened by this but HAVE pointed out repeatedly that there is a huge difference in being diligent and aware to being hysterical and frightened.

Oh, and I do not need to know details - if our Security Services say that there is a need for more funding/powers to combat 'A' new or increased threat from these demented bastard terrorists, then I trust them and don't need to know.

[lostalex]

Kizzy you have it all backwards. when you have a government protecting you, you don't have to be scared, that's the whole point. we have a government that is protecting us and we can trust it, that means we don't have to be scared.

You are the one that seems scared, because you are paranoid about the government.

You seem more scared of the government than we are of the terrorists. and that's so backwards and paranoid.

Stop being so paranoid.

[kirklancaster]

Kizzy you have it all backwards. when you have a government protecting you, you don't have to be scared, that's the whole point. we have a government that is protecting us and we can trust us, that means we don't have to be scared

Thank you Alex - Common Sense.

[Kizzy]

:joker: I'm paranoid because I'm not terrified of an unknown entity?

Ok guys.

[kirklancaster]

:joker: I'm paranoid because I'm not terrified of an unknown entity?

Ok guys.

IS - an unknown entity?

[Kizzy]

IS - an unknown entity?

Hang on... you said you didn't know what the threat was.

So you're so terrified of IS you want everyone in the UKs phone and email records kept indefinitely?

[kirklancaster]

Hang on... you said you didn't know what the threat was.

So you're so terrified of IS you want everyone in the UKs phone and email records kept indefinitely?

There you go again. You are repeatedly stating that I am 'afraid' 'fearful' or 'terrified' despite me repeatedly correcting you that I am none of those things.

Which is exactly what is wrong with most Lefties on here - they deliberately and wilfully IGNORE facts so that they can say what they want to anyway.

And where have I stated that I wanted "everyone in the UKs phone and email records kept indefinitely"?

Again, just another example of making Strawman statements which are KNOWINGLY false so that you can post what you want to anyway.

:shrug:

[user104658]

And where have I stated that I wanted "everyone in the UKs phone and email records kept indefinitely"?

Are you, then, saying that you WOULDN'T be OK with everyone in the UK's phone and email records being kept indefinitely?

[DemolitionRed]

UK surveillance already access our emails and mobile phones using keyword scanners. This covert surveillance has been going on for many years by M15 and lets remember that M15 remit is the UK and not the rest of the globe.

Will this new surveillance law enable government bodies to store up to 12 months of everyone's personal data? Is this just a way of mass harvesting every phone conversation, text message and email across the land?

In our present time, intrusive techniques such as eavesdropping can or should only be used on those who are seen to pose genuine threat and not for gathering intelligence on the general public or snooping on trade unions as has happened before.

There have been various MI5 security leeks over the years regarding breached snooping but when M15 break the law they are impenetrable and appear to answer to nobody.

[Kizzy]

There you go again. You are repeatedly stating that I am 'afraid' 'fearful' or 'terrified' despite me repeatedly correcting you that I am none of those things.

Which is exactly what is wrong with most Lefties on here - they deliberately and wilfully IGNORE facts so that they can say what they want to anyway.

And where have I stated that I wanted "everyone in the UKs phone and email records kept indefinitely"?

Again, just another example of making Strawman statements which are KNOWINGLY false so that you can post what you want to anyway.

:shrug:

Ah yes it's because I'm on the left that I can see you contradict yourself constantly :/
You want them to have more powers, because of the terrorist threat , yet you are not concerned in the slightest about the threat.
It makes no sense.

[DemolitionRed]

Nobody is denying that terrorism isn't real but fear mongering in the UK has grown out of all proportion and anyone who observes patterns in a political agenda can’t help but notice that our fear levels seem to be ranked up every time our government want to get a new bit of legislation passed, that otherwise wouldn’t be accepted by the public majority.

[DemolitionRed]

I'm not sure why people think that 'lefty' is some kind of insult Kizzy. People clearly haven't noticed that when they try to sling mud at us it just slides straight off!

[kirklancaster]

Ah yes it's because I'm on the left that I can see you contradict yourself constantly :/
You want them to have more powers, because of the terrorist threat , yet you are not concerned in the slightest about the threat.
It makes no sense.

Now you are just being deliberately silly - or are you?

For the zillionth time; :shrug: There is a huge gulf in meaning between Fear and Concern. I have stated that I am concerned about terrorism and also stated that I am not fFrightened - in the sense that you tried to imply.

Fear keeps one awake at nights and robs him of peace of mind and confidence.

I sleep soundly for my few hours per night and I live my life to the max.

I am out of this non-debate now. It has become ludicrous.

[Kizzy]

'Criminals and terrorists, as well as most legitimate businesses – banking in particular – depend more than ever on encrypted communications, that no amount of cooperation from the tech companies can easily decode. Mr Parker’s suggestion in his BBC interview that communication carriers have an ethical obligation to report suspicious activity carries no weight if they are no more able to detect it than the security agencies. '


'In a shocking revelation, the UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) today notified Amnesty International that UK government agencies had spied on the organization by intercepting, accessing and storing its communications.'

The security services can and do intercept calls and messages... what they want is to be able to do is continue doing this without either adhering to procedure or with the full consent of the UK govt, preferably both.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/uk-surveillance-tribunal-reveals-the-government-spied-on-amnesty-international/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/17/the-guardian-view-on-counter-terrorism-legislation-too-important-to-rush

[DemolitionRed]

Yep and at the moment, the UK courts have ruled it legal but are now in a pickle because Amnesty are taking it to the European Court of Human Rights where they will likely rule that the UK's spying programme is in contravention of European law, which would then make it illegal.

[JoshBB]

I feel like we have more than enough surveillance as it is.

[Kizzy]

Yep and at the moment, the UK courts have ruled it legal but are now in a pickle because Amnesty are taking it to the European Court of Human Rights where they will likely rule that the UK's spying programme is in contravention of European law, which would then make it illegal.

Which is why the govt want rid of the human rights laws too, tories bleat about a nanny state... what would they want in all honesty? A jailer state it seems where everyone is confined to a very narrow path with every movement monitored and recorded :/

[Livia]

The paranoia on this thread is kind of worrying...

[DemolitionRed]

Which is why the govt want rid of the human rights laws too, tories bleat about a nanny state... what would they want in all honesty? A jailer state it seems where everyone is confined to a very narrow path with every movement monitored and recorded :/

Oh don't get me started on this one :joker:

Cameron is meddling with our common/domestic law by telling Joe public we need more power in deportation rights, to have the authority to deport people to countries where there's a reasonable expectation of the deportee being tortured. What Joe public needs to understand is, even if the Human Rights Act was re-written and re-named and even if we withdrew from the ECHR we still couldn't deport such people because we are still bound by the UN convention and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture.

The Human Rights Act is for everyone and so when our new bill propose new law which will enable the courts to detain Islamic suspects indefinitely and without trial, it also means it holds the right to detain its citizens indefinitely and without trial too.

The HRA permits the public to make peaceful protests. From what I've managed to gather so far, such assemblies won't be permitted under this new law.

This isn't just about criminals. People really do need to research the implications of what will happen if the British Courts break formal links with the European Court of Human Rights’.

[DemolitionRed]

The naivety on this thread is astounding.

[bots]

Oh don't get me started on this one :joker:

Cameron is meddling with our common/domestic law by telling Joe public we need more power in deportation rights, to have the authority to deport people to countries where there's a reasonable expectation of the deportee being tortured. What Joe public needs to understand is, even if the Human Rights Act was re-written and re-named and even if we withdrew from the ECHR we still couldn't deport such people because we are still bound by the UN convention and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture.

The Human Rights Act is for everyone and so when our new bill propose new law which will enable the courts to detain Islamic suspects indefinitely and without trial, it also means it holds the right to detain its citizens indefinitely and without trial too.

The HRA permits the public to make peaceful protests. From what I've managed to gather so far, such assemblies won't be permitted under this new law.

This isn't just about criminals, people really do need to research the implications of what will happen if the British Courts break formal links with the European Court of Human Rights’.

and don't get me started either. Tony Blair and the previous labour government meddled plenty with peoples personal freedoms, and wanted to go further than they did too!

[kirklancaster]

There has never been any law more exploited by the undeserving than Human Rights Law. As with the Benefits System and a host more, the idea and theory is commendable, the execution and reality, lamentable.

[Livia]

There has never been any law more exploited by the undeserving than Human Rights Law. As with the Benefits System and a host more, the idea and theory is commendable, the execution and reality, lamentable.

It ends up benefitting the most underserving... which I'm sure isn't what it was meant to do when Cherie Blair got her husband to push it through for her.

[DemolitionRed]

and don't get me started either. Tony Blair and the previous labour government meddled plenty with peoples personal freedoms, and wanted to go further than they did too!

Absolutely agree. Traitor Blair did incomprehensible damage whilst he was in power.

[Tom4784]

I don't understand how anyone could support this, they literally used the two most generic buzz words in the media to try to convince the naive people of the public that this would be a good idea.

'Let us invade your privacy even more than we already do! Because of ugh....Terrorists? AND PEADOPHILES!!!'

Surrendering our rights to fight terrorists is an oxymoron in itself.

[Livia]

The implication that those who are against this are right and everyone else is naïve is getting a little tedious. We all have an opinion based on what we know and what we believe. And terrorists and paedophiles are not myths.

[DemolitionRed]

I follow politics and I should point out that I like some of the Tory policies but not all. I also agree with some LD policies but not all and I agree strongly with some of Corbyn's policies but certainly not all.

When labour was in power I was just as vocal about their poor choices and oh boy, did they make some. I'm now pointing out Tory policies that I personally find troublesome and problematic. I've grown not to like Cameron because he's as equally misleading his public as Traitor Blair did back in 2004 but that doesn't cement how I will feel about future Tory parties.

What I won't do is support a party regardless. If people want to do that, carry right on!

[DemolitionRed]

I don't understand how anyone could support this, they literally used the two most generic buzz words in the media to try to convince the naive people of the public that this would be a good idea.

'Let us invade your privacy even more than we already do! Because of ugh....Terrorists? AND PEADOPHILES!!!'

Surrendering our rights to fight terrorists is an oxymoron in itself.

Yep, clever marketing!

[Tom4784]

The implication that those who are against this are right and everyone else is naïve is getting a little tedious. We all have an opinion based on what we know and what we believe. And terrorists and paedophiles are not myths.

It is naive though to think that these surveillance powers, if granted, won't be misused. The terrorist/peadophile line is just an excuse, there hasn't been a major attack in the UK for years now so why do we need to ave our privacy invaded even more? Why can't MI5 do their jobs properly without becoming the Gestappo?

People have died to protect our rights, it's an insult to their memory to throw them away out of fear and for a false sense of security.

[Livia]

It is naive though to think that these surveillance powers, if granted, won't be misused. The terrorist/peadophile line is just an excuse, there hasn't been a major attack in the UK for years now so why do we need to ave our privacy invaded even more? Why can't MI5 do their jobs properly without becoming the Gestappo?

People have died to protect our rights, it's an insult to their memory to throw them away out of fear and for a false sense of security.

Why do you think there hasn't been an attack for a long time? It's not a coincidence. If they need more powers and there is a discussion about it and it becomes law... then I really don't have a problem with it. And my own liberty is just as much at risk as yours.

Please Dezzy, don't liken our security services to the gestapo. That truly is ridiculous.

People are STILL dying to protect our rights. Sometimes those defending us need extra help and intelligence from our security services and I'm not against giving them that.

[bots]

It is naive though to think that these surveillance powers, if granted, won't be misused. The terrorist/peadophile line is just an excuse, there hasn't been a major attack in the UK for years now so why do we need to ave our privacy invaded even more? Why can't MI5 do their jobs properly without becoming the Gestappo?

People have died to protect our rights, it's an insult to their memory to throw them away out of fear and for a false sense of security.

I am somewhat in the middle in all of this. I think the government and agencies are being underhand in linking terrorists with paedophiles to try and get traction for their proposals. They are completely different threats requiring completely different types of detection methods and the threats are handled by separate agencies.

If surveillance techniques need to be enhanced, and it is perfectly possible that it is needed, then the scope and use need to be defined to the n'th degree so that people can be comfortable that the data is being used solely for the purpose intended and cannot be used in relation to any other matter.

I also think that if enhancement is deemed necessary, it needs to be backed up with verifiable metrics showing what threats and incidents would have been stopped if we had these enhanced measures. At the moment, to my knowledge, there has been next to no events on UK soil that have been successful in the last 5 years. Even with the best security in the world, some incidents can always happen, so what exactly will the benefits of increased surveillance be.

[DemolitionRed]

There has never been any law more exploited by the undeserving than Human Rights Law. As with the Benefits System and a host more, the idea and theory is commendable, the execution and reality, lamentable.

Where does human rights protect benefit fraud? and how would a new human rights act deter the exploiters? What on earth has benefit fraud got to do with human rights?

Do you even know what 'The Human Rights Act' is?

[Kizzy]

Where does human rights protect benefit fraud? and how would a new human rights act deter the exploiters? What on earth has benefit fraud got to do with human rights?

Do you even know what 'The Human Rights Act' is?

It's just a strawman thrown in as leftist ideology, like human rights....

[Tom4784]

Why do you think there hasn't been an attack for a long time? It's not a coincidence. If they need more powers and there is a discussion about it and it becomes law... then I really don't have a problem with it. And my own liberty is just as much at risk as yours.

Please Dezzy, don't liken our security services to the gestapo. That truly is ridiculous.

People are STILL dying to protect our rights. Sometimes those defending us need extra help and intelligence from our security services and I'm not against giving them that.

They didn't need these powers before and I'm not gonna believe they need it now because they used a few buzzwords to work people into an hysteria. Like Bitontheside said, if they really need it then they'll give us full and frank justifications of why it's needed and it should be regulated to prevent them becoming even more like the NSA. I'm not willing going to give up my rights because of some boogeyman buzzwords.

[kirklancaster]

It's just a strawman thrown in as leftist ideology, like human rights....

Oh Groan. :bored:

[DemolitionRed]

The present law in Britain states very clearly 'the right to a private and family life'.

Last year, when the British government got caught collecting and storing data from peoples private lives, they found themselves in breach of The Human Rights Act and told to cease immediately and delete the information they had collected.

I suppose the question is, should the ECHR have jurisdiction over British Human Rights?

[DemolitionRed]

The present law in Britain states very clearly 'the right to a private and family life'.

Last year, when the British government got caught collecting and storing data from peoples private lives, they found themselves in breach of The Human Rights Act and told to cease immediately and delete the information they had collected.

I suppose the question is, should the ECHR have jurisdiction over British Human Rights?

[Kizzy]

That'll be the next to go then no doubt...

[bots]

The present law in Britain states very clearly 'the right to a private and family life'.

Last year, when the British government got caught collecting and storing data from peoples private lives, they found themselves in breach of The Human Rights Act and told to cease immediately and delete the information they had collected.

I suppose the question is, should the ECHR have jurisdiction over British Human Rights?

The problem is that the bit you have bolded has been exploited by terrorists in that family members have been indoctrinated and indeed terrorist plots cooked up within families. So while I agree it is a very slippery slope to invade fundamental rights, there equally has to be a solution to that particular issue. As a member of the security force, if thats where the majority of threats are originating from, I would want access to that data, otherwise I can't be as effective as I could be. As a family member, it is an outrageous invasion of my privacy

[DemolitionRed]

The problem is that the bit you have bolded has been exploited by terrorists in that family members have been indoctrinated and indeed terrorist plots cooked up within families. So while I agree it is a very slippery slope to invade fundamental rights, there equally has to be a solution to that particular issue. As a member of the security force, if thats where the majority of threats are originating from, I would want access to that data, otherwise I can't be as effective as I could be. As a family member, it is an outrageous invasion of my privacy

On some levels I agree with you bitontheslide, but then data has been collected and will go on being collected on suspects for many years now. The difference is, we are not allowed to keep hold of that data once a person has been cleared of any wrong doing. The new proposal wants to hold the right to keep and store that data regardless of guilt or innocence and this is the bit I'm having trouble with.

At the moment the police or investigative services have to apply to the court if they want to snoop. This creates a huge backlog which in turn results in missed opportunities to catch a criminal. By removing court ruling, investigative services can be more efficient.

The problem is, MI5 have been caught snooping into foreign governments and opposing political parties on numerous occasions, regardless of the present laws. Without permission to snoop, a snooper, when caught, will be in very serious trouble and certainly won't have a job to return to. We presently have deterrents in place to protect both the British public and organizations that could be seen to pose, not a threat but a differing opinion to Tory politics and its these people we need to protect by having the right law in place.

[JoshBB]

I feel like this has gone really off-topic, tbh.. so I'll try to turn this back to the topic.

Personally I trust the ECHR and UN human rights convention (forget the name) far more than I do the government at this moment. The UN has also already criticised that we are breaching human rights and based on that, I don't think any new powers should be given to MI5.

[Northern Monkey]

Y'all cray cray in here.

[letmein]

I don't understand how anyone could support this, they literally used the two most generic buzz words in the media to try to convince the naive people of the public that this would be a good idea.

'Let us invade your privacy even more than we already do! Because of ugh....Terrorists? AND PEADOPHILES!!!'

Surrendering our rights to fight terrorists is an oxymoron in itself.

Yep. You've opened a Pandora's box. Where's does it stop. Unbelievably frightening.

[kirklancaster]

QUOTE=DemolitionRed;8160225]Where does human rights protect benefit fraud? and how would a new human rights act deter the exploiters? What on earth has benefit fraud got to do with human rights?

Do you even know what 'The Human Rights Act' is?[/QUOTE]

Now you are being personally insulting. I probably know more about the Human Rights Act than most people - you included - and I probably know more about it's EXPLOITATION by FOREIGN TERRORISTS, KILLERS and CAREER CRIMINALS.

Which was the WHOLE point of my post - the post which you have so grossly misunderstood and so unfairly misquoted. But more of that later, in the meantime here's a few examples of HRA exploitation for you to deny:

PAEDOPHILE: Asylum seeker William Danga was jailed for ten years for raping a 16-year-old girl. The 40-year-old Congolese asylum seeker, who raped and molested two young girls while fighting deportation after his release, and is now serving a 15-year sentence, used the HRA and the fact he has two children to stay in Britain.

RAPIST: Somali rapist Mustafa Abdullahi was jailed for ten years after holding a knife to a pregnant woman’s throat as he attacked her. He was ordered to be deported but immigration judges refused saying it would breach his family rights. He does not have a wife or children in Britain but his mother and other family members lived here.

KILLER: Iraqi Aso Mohammed Ibrahim left 12-year-old Amy Houston to die ‘like a dog’ under the wheels of his car after knocking her down in 2003 while banned from driving. Twice refused asylum, he was never removed by the Home Office and, after the killing, was allowed to stay in the UK after serving a mere four months in jail because he had fathered two children here, which judges ruled gave him a right to a ‘family life’.

WAR CRIMES SUSPECT: Serb Milan Sarcevic was accused of involvement in the 1991 Vukovar massacre of up to 300 men and women. The wounded Croat victims were beaten, executed and buried in a mass grave. A judge ruled evidence of his involvement was ‘not conclusive’ and did not warrant breaching his ‘strong family life’. The 62-year-old lives on a council estate in south-east London.

SEX OFFENDER: For years Mohammed Kendeh escaped removal to Sierra Leone despite convictions for robbery, burglary, arson and assaults on 11 women. An immigration judge ruled in 2007 that as Kendeh, 24, came to Britain aged six, and had almost no family in West Africa, he had effectively become ‘one of us’.

ALCOHOLIC REPEAT CRIMINAL : A Libyan convicted of 78 offences escaped deportation last month on the grounds he is an alcoholic. The 53-year-old man, who is protected by an anonymity order, successfully argued he would be tortured and imprisoned by the authorities in his homeland because drinking alcohol is illegal. He is now free to continue his drink-fuelled offending spree in Britain.

RAPIST Rapist Mustafa Abdullahi from SOMALI who was jailed for ten years after holding a knife to a pregnant woman’s throat, was ordered to be deported but immigration judges refused saying it would breach his family rights

KILLER Serb Milan Sarcevic was accused of involvement in the Vukovar massacre but has not been deported.

RAPIST: Akindoyin Akinshipe escaped deportation in September 2011 after judges said he had a right to a ‘private life’ in the UK. He was due to be sent to Nigeria after losing a series of appeals in Britain over his jailing for an attack on a girl of 13 when he was 15. But Strasbourg overruled, despite him not having a long-term partner or children in the UK.

TERRORIST FANATIC: In 1996, Strasbourg ruled over Karamjit Chahal, a separatist who was wanted for sedition in India. He argued that, even if somebody posed a grave threat to national security, they could not be sent back to a country where they might be ill treated. Since this precedent - thousands of convicts and fanatics have been able to stay on these grounds.

VIOLENT MOTHER: A Bangladeshi woman jailed for five years for stabbing her baby daughter with a kitchen knife in East London in 2009 won the right to stay in Britain so she could rebuild her relationship with the child.

BURGLAR: Wayne Bishop, 33, from Clifton, Nottinghamshire, was let out of prison in May 2011 after just one month of an eight-month sentence so he could look after his five children after a judgement weighed the children's rights against the seriousness of Bishop's offences.

Now back to the post which you misquoted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post

"There has never been any law more exploited by the undeserving than Human Rights Law. As with the Benefits System and a host more, the idea and theory is commendable, the execution and reality, lamentable."

Now WHERE EXACTLY in the above post which I wrote, do I mention:

1) The Human Rights Act protecting benefit fraud?

And WHERE EXACTLY in the above post which I wrote, do I mention:

2) Any 'new human rights act' deterring the exploiters?

And WHERE EXACTLY in the above post which I wrote, do I mention:

3) That benefit fraud has got anything to do with human rights?

IT DOES NOT - PATENTLY. - except to the stupid or dishonest.

It clearly says that the Human Rights Act is but one of many of our systems - The Benefits System included - which, though created for the right reasons are being too easily EXPLOITED by the unscrupulous and least deserving.

Now WHAT to any REASONABLE person is SO WRONG with THAT? Or so diificult to understand?

[Livia]

Good examples, Kirk. This country doesn't need a foreign court to afford people human rights, human rights have been fought for in this country over centuries.

[kirklancaster]

Good examples, Kirk. This country doesn't need a foreign court to afford people human rights, human rights have been fought for in this country over centuries.

Thanks Liv, but do you have trouble discerning the meaning of the post which I claim Red has misunderstood and misquoted?

[Livia]

Thanks Liv, but do you have trouble discerning the meaning of the post which I claim Red has misunderstood and misquoted?

No. Everything's very clear to me on this thread, Kirk.

[kirklancaster]

No. Everything's very clear to me on this thread, Kirk.

Thanks Liv - I know EXACTLY what you mean.

[Kizzy]

QUOTE=DemolitionRed;8160225]Where does human rights protect benefit fraud? and how would a new human rights act deter the exploiters? What on earth has benefit fraud got to do with human rights?

Do you even know what 'The Human Rights Act' is?

Now you are being personally insulting. I probably know more about the Human Rights Act than most people - you included - and I probably know more about it's EXPLOITATION by FOREIGN TERRORISTS, KILLERS and CAREER CRIMINALS.

Which was the WHOLE point of my post - the post which you have so grossly misunderstood and so unfairly misquoted. But more of that later, in the meantime here's a few examples of HRA exploitation for you to deny:

PAEDOPHILE: Asylum seeker William Danga was jailed for ten years for raping a 16-year-old girl. The 40-year-old Congolese asylum seeker, who raped and molested two young girls while fighting deportation after his release, and is now serving a 15-year sentence, used the HRA and the fact he has two children to stay in Britain.

RAPIST: Somali rapist Mustafa Abdullahi was jailed for ten years after holding a knife to a pregnant woman’s throat as he attacked her. He was ordered to be deported but immigration judges refused saying it would breach his family rights. He does not have a wife or children in Britain but his mother and other family members lived here.

KILLER: Iraqi Aso Mohammed Ibrahim left 12-year-old Amy Houston to die ‘like a dog’ under the wheels of his car after knocking her down in 2003 while banned from driving. Twice refused asylum, he was never removed by the Home Office and, after the killing, was allowed to stay in the UK after serving a mere four months in jail because he had fathered two children here, which judges ruled gave him a right to a ‘family life’.

WAR CRIMES SUSPECT: Serb Milan Sarcevic was accused of involvement in the 1991 Vukovar massacre of up to 300 men and women. The wounded Croat victims were beaten, executed and buried in a mass grave. A judge ruled evidence of his involvement was ‘not conclusive’ and did not warrant breaching his ‘strong family life’. The 62-year-old lives on a council estate in south-east London.

SEX OFFENDER: For years Mohammed Kendeh escaped removal to Sierra Leone despite convictions for robbery, burglary, arson and assaults on 11 women. An immigration judge ruled in 2007 that as Kendeh, 24, came to Britain aged six, and had almost no family in West Africa, he had effectively become ‘one of us’.

ALCOHOLIC REPEAT CRIMINAL : A Libyan convicted of 78 offences escaped deportation last month on the grounds he is an alcoholic. The 53-year-old man, who is protected by an anonymity order, successfully argued he would be tortured and imprisoned by the authorities in his homeland because drinking alcohol is illegal. He is now free to continue his drink-fuelled offending spree in Britain.

RAPIST Rapist Mustafa Abdullahi from SOMALI who was jailed for ten years after holding a knife to a pregnant woman’s throat, was ordered to be deported but immigration judges refused saying it would breach his family rights

KILLER Serb Milan Sarcevic was accused of involvement in the Vukovar massacre but has not been deported.

RAPIST: Akindoyin Akinshipe escaped deportation in September 2011 after judges said he had a right to a ‘private life’ in the UK. He was due to be sent to Nigeria after losing a series of appeals in Britain over his jailing for an attack on a girl of 13 when he was 15. But Strasbourg overruled, despite him not having a long-term partner or children in the UK.

TERRORIST FANATIC: In 1996, Strasbourg ruled over Karamjit Chahal, a separatist who was wanted for sedition in India. He argued that, even if somebody posed a grave threat to national security, they could not be sent back to a country where they might be ill treated. Since this precedent - thousands of convicts and fanatics have been able to stay on these grounds.

VIOLENT MOTHER: A Bangladeshi woman jailed for five years for stabbing her baby daughter with a kitchen knife in East London in 2009 won the right to stay in Britain so she could rebuild her relationship with the child.

BURGLAR: Wayne Bishop, 33, from Clifton, Nottinghamshire, was let out of prison in May 2011 after just one month of an eight-month sentence so he could look after his five children after a judgement weighed the children's rights against the seriousness of Bishop's offences.

Now back to the post which you misquoted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post

"There has never been any law more exploited by the undeserving than Human Rights Law. As with the Benefits System and a host more, the idea and theory is commendable, the execution and reality, lamentable."

Now WHERE EXACTLY in the above post which I wrote, do I mention:

1) The Human Rights Act protecting benefit fraud?

And WHERE EXACTLY in the above post which I wrote, do I mention:

2) Any 'new human rights act' deterring the exploiters?

And WHERE EXACTLY in the above post which I wrote, do I mention:

3) That benefit fraud has got anything to do with human rights?

IT DOES NOT - PATENTLY. - except to the stupid or dishonest.

It clearly says that the Human Rights Act is but one of many of our systems - The Benefits System included - which, though created for the right reasons are being too easily EXPLOITED by the unscrupulous and least deserving.

Now WHAT to any REASONABLE person is SO WRONG with THAT? Or so diificult to understand?[/QUOTE]

Was this post not deleted yesterday?
How would a new Human Rights Act deter exploiters? That's a brilliant question... it wouldn't.
We don't want a HRA now we want to be able to snoop on whoever whenever and mete out justice as we see fit.
This thread is due to be locked it's already been cleaned because some just can't keep civil, it's really unfair on those who are genuinely interested in the topic.

[kirklancaster]

Now you are being personally insulting. I probably know more about the Human Rights Act than most people - you included - and I probably know more about it's EXPLOITATION by FOREIGN TERRORISTS, KILLERS and CAREER CRIMINALS.

Which was the WHOLE point of my post - the post which you have so grossly misunderstood and so unfairly misquoted. But more of that later, in the meantime here's a few examples of HRA exploitation for you to deny:

PAEDOPHILE: Asylum seeker William Danga was jailed for ten years for raping a 16-year-old girl. The 40-year-old Congolese asylum seeker, who raped and molested two young girls while fighting deportation after his release, and is now serving a 15-year sentence, used the HRA and the fact he has two children to stay in Britain.

RAPIST: Somali rapist Mustafa Abdullahi was jailed for ten years after holding a knife to a pregnant woman’s throat as he attacked her. He was ordered to be deported but immigration judges refused saying it would breach his family rights. He does not have a wife or children in Britain but his mother and other family members lived here.

KILLER: Iraqi Aso Mohammed Ibrahim left 12-year-old Amy Houston to die ‘like a dog’ under the wheels of his car after knocking her down in 2003 while banned from driving. Twice refused asylum, he was never removed by the Home Office and, after the killing, was allowed to stay in the UK after serving a mere four months in jail because he had fathered two children here, which judges ruled gave him a right to a ‘family life’.

WAR CRIMES SUSPECT: Serb Milan Sarcevic was accused of involvement in the 1991 Vukovar massacre of up to 300 men and women. The wounded Croat victims were beaten, executed and buried in a mass grave. A judge ruled evidence of his involvement was ‘not conclusive’ and did not warrant breaching his ‘strong family life’. The 62-year-old lives on a council estate in south-east London.

SEX OFFENDER: For years Mohammed Kendeh escaped removal to Sierra Leone despite convictions for robbery, burglary, arson and assaults on 11 women. An immigration judge ruled in 2007 that as Kendeh, 24, came to Britain aged six, and had almost no family in West Africa, he had effectively become ‘one of us’.

ALCOHOLIC REPEAT CRIMINAL : A Libyan convicted of 78 offences escaped deportation last month on the grounds he is an alcoholic. The 53-year-old man, who is protected by an anonymity order, successfully argued he would be tortured and imprisoned by the authorities in his homeland because drinking alcohol is illegal. He is now free to continue his drink-fuelled offending spree in Britain.

RAPIST Rapist Mustafa Abdullahi from SOMALI who was jailed for ten years after holding a knife to a pregnant woman’s throat, was ordered to be deported but immigration judges refused saying it would breach his family rights

KILLER Serb Milan Sarcevic was accused of involvement in the Vukovar massacre but has not been deported.

RAPIST: Akindoyin Akinshipe escaped deportation in September 2011 after judges said he had a right to a ‘private life’ in the UK. He was due to be sent to Nigeria after losing a series of appeals in Britain over his jailing for an attack on a girl of 13 when he was 15. But Strasbourg overruled, despite him not having a long-term partner or children in the UK.

TERRORIST FANATIC: In 1996, Strasbourg ruled over Karamjit Chahal, a separatist who was wanted for sedition in India. He argued that, even if somebody posed a grave threat to national security, they could not be sent back to a country where they might be ill treated. Since this precedent - thousands of convicts and fanatics have been able to stay on these grounds.

VIOLENT MOTHER: A Bangladeshi woman jailed for five years for stabbing her baby daughter with a kitchen knife in East London in 2009 won the right to stay in Britain so she could rebuild her relationship with the child.

BURGLAR: Wayne Bishop, 33, from Clifton, Nottinghamshire, was let out of prison in May 2011 after just one month of an eight-month sentence so he could look after his five children after a judgement weighed the children's rights against the seriousness of Bishop's offences.

Now back to the post which you misquoted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post

"There has never been any law more exploited by the undeserving than Human Rights Law. As with the Benefits System and a host more, the idea and theory is commendable, the execution and reality, lamentable."

Now WHERE EXACTLY in the above post which I wrote, do I mention:

1) The Human Rights Act protecting benefit fraud?

And WHERE EXACTLY in the above post which I wrote, do I mention:

2) Any 'new human rights act' deterring the exploiters?

And WHERE EXACTLY in the above post which I wrote, do I mention:

3) That benefit fraud has got anything to do with human rights?

IT DOES NOT - PATENTLY. - except to the stupid or dishonest.

It clearly says that the Human Rights Act is but one of many of our systems - The Benefits System included - which, though created for the right reasons are being too easily EXPLOITED by the unscrupulous and least deserving.

Now WHAT to any REASONABLE person is SO WRONG with THAT? Or so diificult to understand?

Was this post not deleted yesterday?
How would a new Human Rights Act deter exploiters? That's a brilliant question... it wouldn't.
We don't want a HRA now we want to be able to snoop on whoever whenever and mete out justice as we see fit.
This thread is due to be locked it's already been cleaned because some just can't keep civil, it's really unfair on those who are genuinely interested in the topic.[/QUOTE]

Why do you do this Kizzy?

I am exercising my democratic right as a member to respond to a misquoted and misunderstood post of mine.

No it was not removed yesterday - and nor has the offending post which misunderstands and misquotes my perfectably legible post.

There is no trouble here apart from that which you are trying once again to stir up.

I mean, just look at how you persist in dishonestly repeating a false post as the truth even when it has been comprehensively pointed out that it is false:

"How would a new Human Rights Act deter exploiters? That's a brilliant question... it wouldn't."

WHY have you repeated this falsehood above even after I have pointed out and PROVED that I NEVER WROTE THAT?

It was the same with this:

I post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post:
This is the whole point. There has not been a succsseful terrorist attempt for a long time just BECAUSE of our Security Services work, now though, there is a definite new threat which they know about and we do not, which neccessitates them asking for the relevant new powers to deal with it"

To which you POST:

"So you're frightened of something, but you don't know what?..."

Which you - once again completely MADE UP. I then respond with:

"Genuinely - I am frightened of NOTHING on this planet. I have never said anywhere that I am frightened by this but HAVE pointed out repeatedly that there is a huge difference in being diligent and aware to being hysterical and frightened."

So do you accept that my original post does NOT state what you implied it said? NO.

Do you accept my assurance that I am NOT frightened as you imply? NO.

Instead - AFTER BEING TOLD OTHERWISE - you post:

"So you're so terrified of IS you want everyone in the UKs phone and email records kept indefinitely?"

Not only do you repeat your dishonesty, you compound it by adding another BLATANT LIE which was also something I clearly did NOT say in any of my posts:

"...so you want everyone in the UKs phone and email records kept indefinitely?".

This conduct is not fair on a Serious Debates forum. We can have differing opinions, but there is no need to repeatedly INVENT false statements the way that you and others do on here.

Stichk to the facts please, because your current habit of not doing is both tiresome and un fair.

To the mods: There is no need to close this thread or remove this post. I am merely speaking the truth and righting a repeated series of wrongs.

The matter is now closed as far as I am concerned.

[Niamh.]

omg Can you all just stick to the subject and not eachother ffs, it's not that difficult is it? :laugh:

[Kizzy]

Why do I challenge your opinion? because I can.
I get it now, you don't want a Human Rights Act because of the exploitation.
That will be wonderful news for those who died for those rights should they ever stop spinning in their graves long enough to hear it.

'there is a definite new threat which they know about and we do not'

I'm not wanting to antagonise you but if you make statements like this sorry but it smacks of you being very very worried :/

Sorry to you too Niamh I know you went bold but I have a right to reply to a suggestion I'm making unfair challenges.

[Livia]

Why do I challenge your opinion? because I can.
I get it now, you don't want a Human Rights Act because of the exploitation.
That will be wonderful news for those who died for those rights should they ever stop spinning in their graves long enough to hear it.

'there is a definite new threat which they know about and we do not'

I'm not wanting to antagonise you but if you make statements like this sorry but it smacks of you being very very worried :/

Sorry to you too Niamh I know you went bold but I have a right to reply to a suggestion I'm making unfair challenges.

I think you may find that those people who died for our human rights, did not die for the European Convention on Human Rights. Those people who died... I wish we should give them a glimpse of how the country turned out and ask them, do you think it was worth it?

[Kizzy]

I think you may find that those people who died for our human rights, did not die for the European Convention on Human Rights. Those people who died... I wish we should give them a glimpse of how the country turned out and ask them, do you think it was worth it?

I think we should ask Amnesty international or maybe refugees past and present what they think about it too.
How has the country turned out, What is it about modern UK that they would object to?

[user104658]

I think we should ask Amnesty international or maybe refugees past and present what they think about it too.
How has the country turned out, What is it about modern UK that they would object to?
Sand******s presumably.

Yeah.

Definitely Sandcastles.

[kirklancaster]

Why do I challenge your opinion? because I can.
I get it now, you don't want a Human Rights Act because of the exploitation.
That will be wonderful news for those who died for those rights should they ever stop spinning in their graves long enough to hear it.

'there is a definite new threat which they know about and we do not'

I'm not wanting to antagonise you but if you make statements like this sorry but it smacks of you being very very worried :/

Sorry to you too Niamh I know you went bold but I have a right to reply to a suggestion I'm making unfair challenges.

I will not respond to you again. I think that anyone with a brain and eyes can see the truth here.

[Livia]

I think we should ask Amnesty international or maybe refugees past and present what they think about it too.
How has the country turned out, What is it about modern UK that they would object to?

You'd think that Amnesty International would have enough on their plate dealing with countries that really have no freedom where people are exploited and mistreated. The rest... well, is just another of your cunningly worded invitations to an argument and I decline.

[Kizzy]

You'd think that Amnesty International would have enough on their plate dealing with countries that really have no freedom where people are exploited and mistreated. The rest... well, is just another of your cunningly worded invitations to an argument and I decline.

Oh they do I'm sure but it's nice to hold on to what little rights you have too.
The rest is a response to your query... Why ask a question and then balk at the reply?

[Livia]

Oh they do I'm sure but it's nice to hold on to what little rights you have too.
The rest is a response to your query... Why ask a question and then balk at the reply?

You answered my obviously rhetorical question with a question... it was not a reply to my original statement... and here we go, discussing semantics.

Okay enough now. This is not stimulating it's tedious, I'm putting you back on ignore.

[Kizzy]

Ok Livia. Not sure how I'm to blame for your supposition but we'll leave it then.