May will rip human rights laws to fight terror

[Brillopad]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/theresa-may-rip-up-human-rights-laws-impede-new-terror-legislation

Long overdue - but this is a step in the right direction.

[Black Dagger]

Cant wait to get sacked for liking dick x

[Kazanne]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/theresa-may-rip-up-human-rights-laws-impede-new-terror-legislation

Long overdue - but this is a step in the right direction.

I agree and not before time:wavey:

[Beso]

Good move.

I cant wait for friday when the round up starts..water board the cowardly bastards and get as much info as possible before deporting for ever or jailing forever...i would prefer a quick bullit to the head but let the ****ers suffer.

[user104658]

"May will use terror as an excuse to rip up human rights law", I think you mean.

Horrific stuff. Truly horrific.

[Vanessa]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/theresa-may-rip-up-human-rights-laws-impede-new-terror-legislation

Long overdue - but this is a step in the right direction.
It's about time. Terrorists have no human rights :nono:

[user104658]

Anyone who believes that this will only erode the rights of "terrorists" is an idiot. A flat out idiot.

[Vanessa]

Terrorists need to be killed on sight. They wear bomb vests and carry huge knives and guns. They want to kill people, so that the only way to stop them.

[Beso]

Anyone who believes that this will only erode the rights of "terrorists" is an idiot. A flat out idiot.

Me me me...from the better deal for all party...the caring party.:joker:


When women are being surrounded by 3 men who then try and behead her on the streets of london then im happy for my government to see that ive been searching for tibb on my phone...as everyone should be...unless of course they have stuff to hide.

[Anaesthesia]

Anyone who believes that this will only erode the rights of "terrorists" is an idiot. A flat out idiot.

Exactly this.

[Anaesthesia]

And has everyone forgotten this already too?

Brexit: Theresa May accused of sweeping 'power grab' with plan to rewrite laws without MPs' approval

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-great-repeal-bill-sweeping-power-grab-new-laws-a7659086.html

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

[Brillopad]

"May will use terror as an excuse to rip up human rights law", I think you mean.

Horrific stuff. Truly horrific.

I knew someone would say that and I think it's a load of bull. She won't last long if she does that.

[Beso]

And has everyone forgotten this already too?

Brexit: Theresa May accused of sweeping 'power grab' with plan to rewrite laws without MPs' approval

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-great-repeal-bill-sweeping-power-grab-new-laws-a7659086.html

WAKE UP PEOPLE.



Another accusation taken as fact...in a human rights thread as well....:joker:

[Brillopad]

And has everyone forgotten this already too?

Brexit: Theresa May accused of sweeping 'power grab' with plan to rewrite laws without MPs' approval

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-great-repeal-bill-sweeping-power-grab-new-laws-a7659086.html

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

I don't believe that. Our main priority right now has to be to fight terrorism and get rid of these scum threatening all of us. They have no human rights as they gave up any entitlement to them when they committed terrorist acts.

I think the rest of it is paranoia.

[Vanessa]

I don't believe that. Our main priority right now has to be to fight terrorism and get rid of these scum threatening all of us. They have no human rights as they gave up any entitlement to them when they committed terrorist acts.

I think the rest of it is paranoia.

:clap1:

[user104658]

I knew someone would say that and I think it's a load of bull. She won't last long if she does that.
Why won't she last long? If we know one thing, it's that the public at large will accept pretty much anything - anything at all - if there's a bomb threat attached to it. Cowards of the highest order, willing to sign away every truly great part of life in the West, out of fear. Exactly what the terrorists want. And clapping like seals for it.

[Stu]

I cant wait for friday when the round up starts.
Yeah, fifteen minutes after May gets elected I bet it'll look like the sheep herding scenes from Babe and your vote will keep you safe forever. Believe believe believe :cheer2:

[Beso]

All this its what the terrorists want bull**** is just that, BULL****.

Only thing they want is non believers dead..simple as that.

[Beso]

Yeah, fifteen minutes after May gets elected I bet it'll look like this sheep herding scenes from Babe and your vote will keep you safe forever. Believe believe believe :cheer2:

Im not stupid enough to believe it will keep us safe for ever stu...but its a start.

[Stu]

Oh it's a start alright.

[Kazanne]

Good move.

I cant wait for friday when the round up starts..water board the cowardly bastards and get as much info as possible before deporting for ever or jailing forever...i would prefer a quick bullit to the head but let the ****ers suffer.

parmy for PM :wavey:

[Denver]

I dont know why anyone would want to give the scum human rights

[Vanessa]

I dont know why anyone would want to give the scum human rights

This!

[user104658]

...unless of course they have stuff to hide.

Oh this old soundbite being trotted out. "You wouldn't be worried about privacy if you had nothing to hide! Here have my phone I'm scared of... Well, everything pretty much. Keep me safe mummy government!"

[user104658]

All this its what the terrorists want bull**** is just that, BULL****.

Only thing they want is non believers dead..simple as that.
:worry: we'll that's me convinced. Cut off the Internet immediately Mummy May.

[DemolitionRed]

What about us, should we have human rights? think about that.
Anyway, it will be an interesting police state; the police hate her as much as we do.

[T*]

Anyone who believes that this will only erode the rights of "terrorists" is an idiot. A flat out idiot.

This
I'm not a politics fan or anything but ffs do some of you not know what you're sleep walking into!??

[user104658]

What about us, should we have human rights? think about that.


Not if it means terrorists do any terrorist things! :fist: I personally would accept a daily waterboarding if it meant we could deport everyone.

[Kazanne]

What about us, should we have human rights? think about that.
Anyway, it will be an interesting police state; the police hate her as much as we do.

She has said,she will alter the laws for terrorists human rights if she needs to,people really need to listen more and stop panicking,and please don't speak for me,I don't hate her,I don't hate any of them,why would I ?I don't know them.

[user104658]

She has said,she will alter the laws for terrorists human rights if she needs to,people really need to listen more and stop panicking

The only people who are "panicking" are those who think that even the suggestion of accepting a reduction in our rights is acceptable because they are so overwhelmingly terrified of terrorist attacks. People fought tooth and nail for centuries to achieve the rights we have today... and now people are willing to give them away - APPLAUD giving them away - for the temporary illusion of peace of mind? I don't know. Maybe we've become spoiled. Maybe we take our rights and freedoms for granted.

Those of us who are disgusted by the idea of the government selectively "removing rights" and "changing laws" as suits are not panicking. We're watching a very, very slow car crash and doing this: :facepalm:.

and please don't speak for me,I don't hate her,I don't hate any of them,why would I ?I don't know them.

Are you a police officer, Kazanne?

[DemolitionRed]

This isn't just to do with terrorists and I honestly pity those who think it is TS.

Which of the rights enshrined in the ECHR does May think the British people are better off without? Do we have an answer to that question? And why are people under the impression that the ECHR has everything to do with the EU? Its a document inspired by Churchill, drafted by British lawyers.

[user104658]

This isn't just to do with terrorists and I honestly pity those who think it is TS.

Which of the rights enshrined in the ECHR does May think the British people are better off without? Do we have an answer to that question? And why are people under the impression that the ECHR has everything to do with the EU? Its a document inspired by Churchill, drafted by British lawyers.


I don't pity them; I pity those of us who appreciate them and are going to lose them anyway because of the anxiety of the masses.

Those who are happy to see them go, I hope are the very first to suffer for losing them.

[Northern Monkey]

I'm all for taking away terrorists 'human' rights however anything like that would have to be scrutinised thoroughly in Parliament and the Lords and you can bet it will be in the media, to make sure it doesn't affect the average human.

I think we have to be wary certainly that absolutely anything doesn't get passed but i also think there's a certain amount of paranoia that the government are trying to turn Britain into some Orwellian distopian nightmare.Why would they want to?They can't even track the 23,000 jihadis we already have.Why would they want to add even more work to their load by tracking and locking up the other 65 million people.

[Withano]

Long overdue - but this is a step in the right direction.

:joker: you cant be serious

[Withano]

"WE NEED TO FIGHT TERRORISM"

"Hmm. Lets lose a load of the police force, and abolish human rights"

"Excellent idea, long overdue"

Its genuinely got to the point that people will support tories in whatever they do.

[user104658]

I'm all for taking away terrorists 'human' rights however anything like that would have to be scrutinised thoroughly in Parliament and the Lords and you can bet it will be in the media, to make sure it doesn't affect the average human.

You can't, though, any changes made to human rights laws apply to everyone. That's sort of the point. Of course it will affect the average human. Happily allowing them to change these things in one way sets a precident for them to change all sort of other rights in any way they want. So yeah... today they use the rhetoric of terrorism: WOOP WOOP! Yay! Get 'em! No human rights for terrorists. Or whatever.

The point is; that's just today. Tomorrow it'll be disability rights, the right to a basic sustenance income, workers rights... not all of them and not straight away but the point is, they will take it as a mandate to change anything they want to change, to fit any agenda they have at the time.

Scrutinized in the Lords? No, they've already shown that they're willing to dodge around that and are actively trying to erode / dismantle the HoL. Scrutinized in the media? Nope. Tell them it's "all for the greater good" and people will lap it up.

I think we have to be wary certainly that absolutely anything doesn't get passed but i also think there's a certain amount of paranoia that the government are trying to turn Britain into some Orwellian distopian nightmare.Why would they want to?They can't even track the 23,000 jihadis we already have.Why would they want to add even more work to their load by tracking and locking up the other 65 million people.

I know you used the term but do you actually know the basic premise of Orwell? Of course they don't have the resources to track and lock everyone away. That's the whole point. The entire concept of "Big Brother is watching" is that it's a method of control that means they don't HAVE to do much... because the knowledge that they can is enough to keep people obedient and under control.

[jaxie]

My son is raging about this today. I'm a bit more philosophical remembering just how difficult it was to deport Abu Qatada. If it means changing the law to be able to get rid of people spreading hateful ideaology it might be worth it.

Oh and I don't pity anyone with a different view or think they are an idiot.

[Vicky.]

Anyone who believes that this will only erode the rights of "terrorists" is an idiot. A flat out idiot.

Sorry I have to agree with this. Do people not realize this is your own rights being eroded?! Jesus...

[user104658]

Oh and I don't pity anyone with a different view or think they are an idiot.

No need for pointed comments jaxie :idc:.

[jaxie]

No need for pointed comments jaxie :idc:.

No there isn't TS.

[Beso]

:worry: we'll that's me convinced. Cut off the Internet immediately Mummy May.

Nah, give them the platform they need to plan and recruit...wait until lots mote die a horrible death first..then maybe deal with it.

[Tom4784]

Anyone that praises the destruction of Human Rights out of fear are basically taking a dump on the graves of every soldier, activist and individual that died to help create and protect those rights. It's a ****ing disgrace and people who support this should be ashamed.

[jaxie]

I am not convinced that the changing of a law is always a bad thing. Why can't some things be touched or improved upon? How do any laws ever come into force if governments don't look at them and look for flaws in them?

All this panic over the suggestion of looking at it seems a bit OTT to me. :shrug:

The EU kept saying, we can't change treaties, they have since talked about changing treaties.

[King Gizzard]

This was on her agenda regardless of terrorism. But now she has a reason to pass it without much opposition because anyone who opposes it in the house will be labelled a terrorist sympathiser

1984 is about to become non fiction

[Tom4784]

I am not convinced that the changing of a law is always a bad thing. Why can't some things be touched or improved upon? How do any laws ever come into force if governments don't look at them and look for flaws in them?

All this panic over the suggestion of looking at it seems a bit OTT to me. :shrug:

The EU kept saying, we can't change treaties, they have since talked about changing treaties.

It should only be expanded upon to provide more rights, never to take them away. Taking away rights is basically like waving a white flag at terrorism. We will have already lost if that's the case.

Reduced human rights only benefits the government, to think it would have an impact on terrorism is gullible to the extreme. We are the only ones who will suffer because of it because increased surveillance and a controlled internet will only be used to consolidate the Government's power, not root out terrorism.

Human Rights are something we should fight to protect. We shouldn't be giving them up out of hysterical fear.

[Jack_]

Its genuinely got to the point that people will support tories in whatever they do.

I've been saying this for weeks, they can literally do or say anything they like and the electorate will lap it up. It's ****ing frightening.

It is beyond all comprehension that people think this is an exciting idea. Well, who am I kidding? It's not really, but Jesus Christ we really are sleeping walking into a dystopian nightmare. This deplorable **** is about to be gifted a carte blanche landslide mandate to dismantle our public services, sell them off to the highest bidder, and rip up people's long-fought for rights in the name of anti-terror. I think some people forget that the concept of human rights are universal, they're not dealt out like treats to children when they've 'earned' them. Either we all have them, or we all don't. It's like yesterday when people were banging on about Sadiq Khan 'defending' a 9/11 conspirator. Funnily enough, he was a lawyer and that was his job. Yes, even the most reprehensible people are entitled to a fair hearing. It honestly scares me that people think otherwise.

This election is a living nightmare, and I couldn't hate this country and its people anymore than I do now. Seriously, get me the **** out of here.

[Brillopad]

"WE NEED TO FIGHT TERRORISM"

"Hmm. Lets lose a load of the police force, and abolish human rights"

"Excellent idea, long overdue"

Its genuinely got to the point that people will support tories in whatever they do.

What about our rights not be killed or maimed by terrorists? What about our rights to go about our business without having to look over our shoulders, what about our rights not to have to think twice about taking the kids to London, what about our rights to feel safe in our own country and not have to even think about ISIS terrorists attacking every time we go on the trains/underground trains etc, the list goes on.

Do you care about the rights of terrorists then? I don't!

[user104658]

I've been saying this for weeks, they can literally do or say anything they like and the electorate will lap it up. It's ****ing frightening.

It is beyond all comprehension that people think this is an exciting idea. Well, who am I kidding? It's not really, but Jesus Christ we really are sleeping walking into a dystopian nightmare. This deplorable **** is about to be gifted a carte blanche landslide mandate to dismantle our public services, sell them off to the highest bidder, and rip up people's long-fought for rights in the name of anti-terror. I think some people forget that the concept of human rights are universal, they're not dealt out like treats to children when they've 'earned' them. Either we all have them, or we all don't. It's like yesterday when people were banging on about Sadiq Khan 'defending' a 9/11 conspirator. Funnily enough, he was a lawyer and that was his job. Yes, even the most reprehensible people are entitled to a fair hearing. It honestly scares me that people think otherwise.

This election is a living nightmare, and I couldn't hate this country and its people anymore than I do now. Seriously, get me the **** out of here.
Right there with you. We're literally already considering our future prospects for getting the he'll out of the UK. It's something we've thought about for a while but were always on the "but everywhere else is going the same way anyway" page. However, it's getting past that now. The UK is going to be significantly worse than the US / Canada and other English-speaking countries.

[Brillopad]

I've been saying this for weeks, they can literally do or say anything they like and the electorate will lap it up. It's ****ing frightening.

It is beyond all comprehension that people think this is an exciting idea. Well, who am I kidding? It's not really, but Jesus Christ we really are sleeping walking into a dystopian nightmare. This deplorable **** is about to be gifted a carte blanche landslide mandate to dismantle our public services, sell them off to the highest bidder, and rip up people's long-fought for rights in the name of anti-terror. I think some people forget that the concept of human rights are universal, they're not dealt out like treats to children when they've 'earned' them. Either we all have them, or we all don't. It's like yesterday when people were banging on about Sadiq Khan 'defending' a 9/11 conspirator. Funnily enough, he was a lawyer and that was his job. Yes, even the most reprehensible people are entitled to a fair hearing. It honestly scares me that people think otherwise.

This election is a living nightmare, and I couldn't hate this country and its people anymore than I do now. Seriously, get me the **** out of here.

Dystopian nightmare - more conspiracy theories gone mad. :shrug:

[Withano]

What about our rights not be killed or maimed by terrorists? What about our rights to go about our business without having to look over our shoulders, what about our rights not to have to think twice about taking the kids to London, what about our rights to feel safe in our own country and not have to even think about ISIS terrorists attacking every time we go on the trains/underground trains etc, the list goes on.

Do you care about the rights of terrorists then? I don't!

Ohhhhh so tories can take our human rights because terrorists do too.

[Brillopad]

It should only be expanded upon to provide more rights, never to take them away. Taking away rights is basically like waving a white flag at terrorism. We will have already lost if that's the case.

Reduced human rights only benefits the government, to think it would have an impact on terrorism is gullible to the extreme. We are the only ones who will suffer because of it because increased surveillance and a controlled internet will only be used to consolidate the Government's power, not root out terrorism.

Human Rights are something we should fight to protect. We shouldn't be giving them up out of hysterical fear.

It's the rights of terrorists - they are not entitled to any rights when they commit such atrocities.

[Tom4784]

It's the rights of terrorists - they are not entitled to any rights when they commit such atrocities.

You've missed the point as usual.

You are willing to cut off your nose to spite your face and in the process you are invalidating the sacrifices of everyone who made and protected our human rights. It's disgraceful.

To live in fear and to revoke our own rights for a false sense of security is akin to terrorism winning. People like you are being played like a goddamn fiddle and you'll go along with it gladly because you are incapable of seeing beyond the headlines, the shallow gestures and the catchphrases. Do you actually know anything about Theresa May's policies? Can you name one? Do you know who you are actually supporting?

For the love of God, no matter who you vote for tomorrow at least glance at the manifestos and be informed about it.

[Jack_]

Right there with you. We're literally already considering our future prospects for getting the he'll out of the UK. It's something we've thought about for a while but were always on the "but everywhere else is going the same way anyway" page. However, it's getting past that now. The UK is going to be significantly worse than the US / Canada and other English-speaking countries.

I definitely think it's a move worth taking. Ironically, since I'm under 25, they're going to make it more difficult for me to leave home, let alone abroad.

It's just the thought of what they're about to do to this country that makes me feel physically sick. The amount of people who are about to be ****ed over, left for dead, our public services continuing to crumble, them turning this country into some quasi-police state, giving the press free reign to do what the hell they like, gerrymandering the electoral boundaries to turn us into a one-party state, rescinding worker's rights, bailing out of the EU without a deal (genuinely think this is a strong possibility) which'll sink this country overnight, the list goes on.

I agree with you when you say you don't pity these people anymore. I'm past the point of caring, I hope this next Tory government inflicts a whole world of pain of them so they can realise what this party is actually all about. Maybe when the affects of austerity trickle down to the 'I'm alright Jack' types they'll wake up and see what's going on, or the Brexit debacle will turn out to be a poisoned chalice. But even then I'm losing hope, cause they'll trot out more recycled messages about 'strong and stable leadership', 'balancing the budget', 'coalition of chaos' and the cycle will continue.

I really do miss the pig ****er and the Pepsi sniffer. Awful, but not deplorable. This manifesto literally screams The Nasty Party and they're still going to win.

[jaxie]

You've missed the point as usual.

You are willing to cut off your nose to spite your face and in the process you are invalidating the sacrifices of everyone who made and protected our human rights. It's disgraceful.

To live in fear and to revoke our own rights for a false sense of security is akin to terrorism winning. People like you are being played like a goddamn fiddle and you'll go along with it gladly because you are incapable of seeing beyond the headlines, the shallow gestures and the catchphrases. Do you actually know anything about Theresa May's policies? Can you name one? Do you know who you are actually supporting?

For the love of God, no matter who you vote for tomorrow at least glance at the manifestos and be informed about it.

Those who are panicking about the idea of looking at human rights sound more like they are fearful to me. :shrug:

[jaxie]

Right there with you. We're literally already considering our future prospects for getting the he'll out of the UK. It's something we've thought about for a while but were always on the "but everywhere else is going the same way anyway" page. However, it's getting past that now. The UK is going to be significantly worse than the US / Canada and other English-speaking countries.

Good luck to you and Jack_ though I think you will find the grass isn't always greener. :shrug:

I suppose you would be able to vote against President Trump next time an election comes up. Trudeau seems nice.

[jaxie]

Dystopian nightmare - more conspiracy theories gone mad. :shrug:

I have to agree with you on this one, the reaction on this subject does seem OTT to me.

[Scarlett.]

I have to agree with you on this one, the reaction on this subject does seem OTT to me.

Look at Theresa May's history, her whole career has been about getting more invasions on privacy and freedoms.

[DemolitionRed]

The ridiculous thing is, those voting for the Tories tomorrow won't find out what they voted for until afterwards. Not exactly confidence building is it.

[Tom4784]

Those who are panicking about the idea of looking at human rights sound more like they are fearful to me. :shrug:

Of course I'm fearful, the thought of gullible fools throwing away Human Rights out of hysterical spite is terrifying. If it doesn't worry you then you probably don't have a good understanding of what Human Rights are.

[Jack_]

The ridiculous thing is, those voting for the Tories tomorrow won't find out what they voted for until afterwards. Not exactly confidence building is it.

As the old quote goes, 'the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter'.

[DemolitionRed]

As the old quote goes, 'the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter'.

Hehe! I'm going to pin that quote on my fridge.

[Vicky.]

I knew someone would say that and I think it's a load of bull. She won't last long if she does that.

She won't last long either way. Yes she will win this election. But after the Brexit thing, the Tories will get rid. I fully expect to see a leadership challenge with near the whole party behind the candidate that stands against her. The conservative party may be many things, but they are not stupid. They know she is crap, and won't stand for it. They will soon replace her with someone who actually IS 'strong and stable'.

But they will wait. As they want to have someone to blame for Brexit. Not for going through with it of course as the people voted for it. But either for getting no trade deal, or having to keep freedom of movement. As one of those IS going to happen.

I tend to not like Tory policies (though some I do agree with) but I wouldn't slag off the PM just for the sake of it. An d May is dire. I actually feel a bit sorry for her, as she was forced into a role she was neither ready for nor actually wanted. Its no wonder shes awful at it really.

[Anaesthesia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40187805

I find the following quote from that article particularly pertinent:

A derogation was sought after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 in order to indefinitely detain terror suspects at Belmarsh prison.
The Law Lords (the predecessors of the Supreme Court) declared these measures disproportionate and unlawfully discriminatory because they targeted only non-UK citizens.
Lord Hoffman ruled: "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."

[Vicky.]

I've been saying this for weeks, they can literally do or say anything they like and the electorate will lap it up. It's ****ing frightening.

It is beyond all comprehension that people think this is an exciting idea. Well, who am I kidding? It's not really, but Jesus Christ we really are sleeping walking into a dystopian nightmare. This deplorable **** is about to be gifted a carte blanche landslide mandate to dismantle our public services, sell them off to the highest bidder, and rip up people's long-fought for rights in the name of anti-terror. I think some people forget that the concept of human rights are universal, they're not dealt out like treats to children when they've 'earned' them. Either we all have them, or we all don't. It's like yesterday when people were banging on about Sadiq Khan 'defending' a 9/11 conspirator. Funnily enough, he was a lawyer and that was his job. Yes, even the most reprehensible people are entitled to a fair hearing. It honestly scares me that people think otherwise.

This election is a living nightmare, and I couldn't hate this country and its people anymore than I do now. Seriously, get me the **** out of here.
Indeed Jack, it really is frightening.

I just got back from being in Durham, and I overheard some guy going on about this human rights thing. He was all for scrapping them...his reason

'They are something forced upon us by europe and only benefit terrorists'

There are actually people who think like this. Gavin just kind of glared at me so I didn't set him straight. I mean, its fair enough having the view that this is a good thing IF you understand Human Rights. But this guy clearly didn't. And a hell of a lot of voters won't either...these rights were fought for and we are going to throw them away for nothing, just because May has put the ****ters up people about terrorism. Its kind of..look there don't look here isn't it. Just when she was coming under fire for cutting funds to security services and such...she throws out this gem.

[Niamh.]

Indeed Jack, it really is frightening.

I just got back from being in Durham, and I overheard some guy going on about this human rights thing. He was all for scrapping them...his reason

'They are something forced upon us by europe and only benefit terrorists'

There are actually people who think like this. Gavion just kind of glarted at me so I didn't set him straight. I mean, its fair enough having the view that this is a good thing IF you understand Human Rights. But this guy clearly didn't. And a hell of a lot of voters won't either...these rights were fought for and we are going to throw them away for nothing, just because May has put the ****ters up people about terrorism. Its kind of..look there don't look here isn't it. Just when she was coming under fire for cutting funds to security services and such...she throws out this gem.

Sweet Jesus :facepalm:


**glarted though, is that similar to a shart? :think:

[Vicky.]

Sweet Jesus :facepalm:


**glarted though, is that similar to a shart? :think:

LOL. Glared that should be.

[Braden]

What an awful last-ditch attempt to sway voters back.

[Vicky.]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/keir-starmer-uk-human-rights-law-does-not-prevent-capture-of-terrorists

Shadow Brexit secretary speaking so much ****ing sense.

Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions who oversaw dozens of terror cases, said Theresa May was misguided to focus on human rights law rather than policing cuts.

“There is no incompatibility between protecting human rights and taking effective action against terrorists,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“If we start throwing away our adherence to human rights in response to what has happened in the last three months, we are throwing away the values at the heart of the democracy, everything that we say we believe in.”

Starmer said he had never found human rights law a barrier to successful prosecutions of terrorists or those preparing acts of terrorism. “I know because I did it for five years,” he said. “We did not run into the Human Rights Act as a problem preventing successful prosecutions. We put a lot of people away for a very long time.”

Basically, think before throwing away our own rights. None of these attacks would have been prevented by scrapping human rights and 'apparently' being able to deport terrorists quicker.

[King Gizzard]

It's just a eve of the election shock headline to get gullibles to vote

[user104658]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/keir-starmer-uk-human-rights-law-does-not-prevent-capture-of-terrorists

Shadow Brexit secretary speaking so much ****ing sense.



Basically, think before throwing away our own rights. None of these attacks would have been prevented by scrapping human rights and 'apparently' being able to deport terrorists quicker.

Indeed; what exactly is the point of scrapping a load of human rights to "deport terrorists faster once they're caught", whilst making sweeping cuts that mean they're less likely to be caught in the first place?

I also have a bit of an issue with the whole "Deport them!!" mantra. Like... what? So long as we're OK, who cares if they carry out an attack somewhere else in the world? Just palm them off on another country and let them deal with it? When most of them, if they weren't born in this country, were certainly radicalized here. In my view, that makes them OUR criminals to deal with.

If a British kid moves to the US when he's a normal 10 year old and falls in with a violent gang in a US city, then kills several people when he's 30... do we think the US should say "Hey UK! This guy who was born in your country is a criminal, we've put him on a plane, you can either lock him up at your expense or let him loose on your own streets but we want nothing to do with it thanks."

[Brillopad]

Anyone that praises the destruction of Human Rights out of fear are basically taking a dump on the graves of every soldier, activist and individual that died to help create and protect those rights. It's a ****ing disgrace and people who support this should be ashamed.

I very much doubt the brave men and women who fought in the wars to protect this country would be happy to see the state it is in now with all these terrorist attacks on innocent people and all the hate from certain sectors of our community towards our way of life who have little respect for our country or our culture - so please don't wheel that out - as I don't think you know what you are talking about.

It isn't those that support the removal of the rights of terrorists that should be ashamed.

[Vicky.]

She has said,she will alter the laws for terrorists human rights if she needs to,people really need to listen more and stop panicking,and please don't speak for me,I don't hate her,I don't hate any of them,why would I ?I don't know them.

Problem is, she cannot just change laws to affect terrorists and not ordinary people?! Human rights are either for everyone or no-one. Its impossible to have human rights for everyone except for terrorists. Laws don't work like that :S

Listen more and stop panicking. Because we aren't told a pack of lies on a daily basis in the leadup to the election. Just listen to what politicians say. Do not think about it, nor look up things yourself to check if what we are listening to is true, or even can be true.

I am taking your mention of 'terrorists' to be people who we have proof are actually terrorists? Problem here is...prosecuting actual terrorists is not difficult when the proof is there. These proposed changes will be about 'suspected terrorists'. In other words, scrapping innocent until proven guilty. Thats why its scary that so many are accepting this as a good thing.

[Tom4784]

I very much doubt the brave men and women who fought in the wars to protect this country would be happy to see the state it is in now with all these terrorist attacks on innocent people and all the hate from certain sectors of our community towards our way of life who have little respect for our country or our culture - so please don't wheel that out - as I don't think you know what you are talking about.

It isn't those that support the removal of the rights of terrorists that should be ashamed.

You can continue to delude yourself into thinking that but people have died to protect the rights we've enjoyed and to destroy them like you want to for no good reason is basically allowing thousands of people's deaths to be in vain....just so you can feel less guilty about engaging in your prejudices.

Human Rights should be protected, to give them up in fear is to let the terrorists win. Your attitude towards Human Rights is shameful.

[user104658]

It isn't those that support the removal of the rights of terrorists that should be ashamed.

Will you please at least try to remember that you CAN'T "remove the rights of terrorists" without removing rights for everyone. It's not a thing, it doesn't exist.

[Brillopad]

You can continue to delude yourself into thinking that but people have died to protect the rights we've enjoyed and to destroy them like you want to for no good reason is basically allowing thousands of people's deaths to be in vain....just so you can feel less guilty about engaging in your prejudices.

Human Rights should be protected, to give them up in fear is to let the terrorists win. Your attitude towards Human Rights is shameful.

I feel exactly the same way about your attitude towards them. Terrorists are not entitled to any rights. If you think they are that is your problem.

[Vicky.]

Indeed; what exactly is the point of scrapping a load of human rights to "deport terrorists faster once they're caught", whilst making sweeping cuts that mean they're less likely to be caught in the first place?

I also have a bit of an issue with the whole "Deport them!!" mantra. Like... what? So long as we're OK, who cares if they carry out an attack somewhere else in the world? Just palm them off on another country and let them deal with it? When most of them, if they weren't born in this country, were certainly radicalized here. In my view, that makes them OUR criminals to deal with.

If a British kid moves to the US when he's a normal 10 year old and falls in with a violent gang in a US city, then kills several people when he's 30... do we think the US should say "Hey UK! This guy who was born in your country is a criminal, we've put him on a plane, you can either lock him up at your expense or let him loose on your own streets but we want nothing to do with it thanks."
Yes, when you put it like that it really does highlight the issues with this way of thinking doesn't it...

[joeysteele]

"May will use terror as an excuse to rip up human rights law", I think you mean.

Horrific stuff. Truly horrific.

Dead right.

[user104658]

I feel exactly the same way about your attitude towards them. Terrorists are not entitled to any rights. If you think they are that is your problem.

you CAN'T JUST REMOVE THE RIGHTS OF TERRORISTS WITHOUT REMOVING EVERYONES.

Honest to god how many times are people going to have to state that this is not about "wanting terrorists to have rights"???

[user104658]

Yes, when you put it like that it really does highlight the issues with this way of thinking doesn't it...

Even moreso when you consider that we'd be "sending people back" who are either not yet convicted of anything, or at least not convicted of anything in the country they are being sent to, so it's pretty much certain that they WOULD simply "go free" in that country, and if they indeed are dangerous, to kill / hurt / maim people there. Or even radicalize others and send them right back to Europe? The idea that if we think someone is dangerous we should just "send them away" is completely reckless...

[Niamh.]

Even moreso when you consider that we'd be "sending people back" who are either not yet convicted of anything, or at least not convicted of anything in the country they are being sent to, so it's pretty much certain that they WOULD simply "go free" in that country, and if they indeed are dangerous, to kill / hurt / maim people there. Or even radicalize others and send them right back to Europe? The idea that if we think someone is dangerous we should just "send them away" is completely reckless...

Yes but they're going back to them backwards countries where people aren't real like us so who cares TS?

[Vicky.]

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/what-are-human-rights

This video may seem to be really patronizing but it really seems many do not understand what Human Rights actually are. And how they cannot possibly be restricted for a few people, without affecting everyone else...

[user104658]

Yes but they're going back to them backwards countries where people aren't real like us so who cares TS?

Indeed; just compare the reaction on the London / Manchester threads to the reaction on the Mosul thread where ten times as many innocent people were killed. Not that we should have to "compare numbers" when it comes to attacks like this, it doesn't lessen the horrors of the attacks closer to home, but still... it does speak volumes.

[Vicky.]

Even moreso when you consider that we'd be "sending people back" who are either not yet convicted of anything, or at least not convicted of anything in the country they are being sent to, so it's pretty much certain that they WOULD simply "go free" in that country, and if they indeed are dangerous, to kill / hurt / maim people there. Or even radicalize others and send them right back to Europe? The idea that if we think someone is dangerous we should just "send them away" is completely reckless...
British peoples lives are more important though, why should we care if we are just sending very dangerous people elsewhere. If these dangerous people were British born, then simply send them to wherever their parents were from. If their parents were British born, then just go back along the family tree until we find another country to send our criminals to. Hell..we could save a lot of money with this radical idea actually. anyone convicted of a crime, just send them elsewhere. Everyone has foreign blood somewhere along the line. we no longer need prisons :o

[user104658]

British peoples lives are more important though, why should we care if we are just sending very dangerous people elsewhere. If these dangerous people were British born, then simply send them to wherever their parents were from. If their parents were British born, then just go back along the family tree until we find another country to send our criminals to. Hell..we could save a lot of money with this radical idea actually. anyone convicted of a crime, just send them elsewhere. Everyone has foreign blood somewhere along the line. we no longer need prisons :o
I have Irish on my Dad's side, they could send me to live in Niamh's spare room [emoji23]

[Kazanne]

What about our rights not be killed or maimed by terrorists? What about our rights to go about our business without having to look over our shoulders, what about our rights not to have to think twice about taking the kids to London, what about our rights to feel safe in our own country and not have to even think about ISIS terrorists attacking every time we go on the trains/underground trains etc, the list goes on.

Do you care about the rights of terrorists then? I don't!

No need to add to this :wavey:

[Beso]

No need to add to this :wavey:

Yep.

[Vicky.]

I just read this on another site, is this really what was said? Sorry have had ****ing paw patrol on the majority of the day so haven't actually seen Mays words about it, only whats been posted on here and a few reporters just saying scrapping human rights...

Theresa May said today that she would be looking to deport suspected and convicted terrorists, and if challenged by Human Rights laws, she would change the law

Deport 'suspected' terrorists.

And again, the question needs asked. where would those born here, or those who have lived the majority of their lives here be deported to?

I am fairly uneasy about the idea of punishing people 'suspected' of an offense tbh.

[Denver]

I just read this on another site, is this really what was said? Sorry have had ****ing paw patrol on the majority of the day so haven't actually seen Mays words about it, only whats been posted on here and a few reporters just saying scrapping human rights...



Deport 'suspected' terrorists.

And again, the question needs asked. where would those born here, or those who have lived the majority of their lives here be deported to?

I am fairly uneasy about the idea of punishing people 'suspected' of an offense tbh.
Those who cant be deported should have a bullet through their heads

[Kizzy]

How long have they wanted to rip up human rights?... This is an excuse :/

[Vicky.]

Those who cant be deported should have a bullet through their heads

'suspected'?

[Kizzy]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/keir-starmer-uk-human-rights-law-does-not-prevent-capture-of-terrorists

[Denver]

'suspected'?

All of these attackers over the last few weeks started as suspected and got away

[Vicky.]

All of these attackers over the last few weeks started as suspected and got away

What would your criteria be for 'suspect' in terror cases?

I didn't know all of them were suspects either? I knew the Manchester one and one of the London bridge ones were 'known to intelligence agencies'. I would be more for increasing funding to intelligence agencies so they can investigate people properly before we go to shooting people suspected of stuff in the head tbh

I take it you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty in general?

[Vicky.]

Its terrifying to think that after the Boston bombing I could have been suspected of terror offenses tbh. My internet search history was horrendous. And certain terms are flagged to intelligence agencies. It was innocent of course, but I was searching stuff like how to make a bomb with the contents of your kitchen and stuff as I didn't actually believe it could be done :S

[Denver]

What would your criteria be for 'suspect' in terror cases?

I didn't know all of them were suspects either? I knew the Manchester one and one of the London bridge ones were 'known to intelligence agencies'. I would be more for increasing funding to intelligence agencies so they can investigate people properly before we go to shooting people suspected of stuff in the head tbh

I take it you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty in general?

To me any single young male making regular trips to IS strong countries are guilty and anyone who research or engage in conversation about hurting people in terror related attacks are guilty and a perfect suspect

[Stu]

I love this magic view that ripping up human rights will only apply to those who glowed a lustrous jihadi purple under one of those "are you a terrorist?" UV bulbs.

[Vicky.]

Its terrifying to think that after the Boston bombing I could have been suspected of terror offenses tbh. My internet search history was horrendous. And certain terms are flagged to intelligence agencies. It was innocent of course, but I was searching stuff like how to make a bomb with the contents of your kitchen and stuff as I didn't actually believe it could be done :S

To me any single young male making regular trips to IS strong countries are guilty and anyone who research or engage in conversation about hunting people in terror related attacks are guilty and a perfect suspect


Oh dear. I guess it would be a bullet in the head for me D: And a lot of other people who search stuff about terror attacks actually.

[Withano]

I love this magic view that ripping up human rights will only apply to those who glowed a lustrous jihadi purple under one of those "are you a terrorist?" UV bulbs.

:joker:

[Denver]

Oh dear. I guess it would be a bullet in the head for me D: And a lot of other people who search stuff about terror attacks actually.
That was meant to be hurt bloody autocorrect :fist:

[James]

I haven't read the whole thread, but do people know what the Human Rights Act 1998 is? Because whenever I see it mentioned (social media) they seem to think if you scrapped it there wouldn't be any Human Rights in this country.

One of the troubles I've always thought is it covers so much ground, that it leaves the interpretation down to the courts, and gives a lot of power to judges to rule rather than elected bodies.

Another is that there are contradictions: Article 8 covers privacy, so we now have press privacy laws (despite that issue not being passed by parliament). But Article 10 is about freedom of expression - so that contradicts Article 8 eg. a case could be brought against a news outlet - they would claim freedom of expression the other party would claim privacy. It would be down to a judge to decide.

^From European Convention on Human Rights article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Here's the Wikipedia article on the Human Rights Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

Here's Notable Human Rights Act cases from the above link - what do you think? Fair decisions?


Notable human rights case law

Lee Clegg's murder conviction gave rise to the first case invoking the Act, brought by The Times in October 2000 which sought to overturn a libel ruling against the newspaper.

Campbell v. MGN Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 1373, Naomi Campbell and Sara Cox both sought to assert their right to privacy under the Act. Both cases were successful for the complainant (Campbell's on the second attempt; Cox's attempt was not judicially decided but an out of court settlement was reached before the issue could be tested in court) and an amendment to British law to incorporate a provision for privacy is expected to be introduced.

Venables and Thompson v. News Group Newspapers [2001] 1 All ER 908, the James Bulger murder case tested whether the Article 8 (privacy) rights of Venables and Thomson, the convicted murderers of Bulger, applied when four newspapers sought to publish their new identities and whereabouts, using their Article 10 rights of freedom of expression. The judge, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, granted permanent global injunctions ordering that the material not be published because of the disastrous consequences such disclosure might have for the former convicts, not least the possibility of physical harm or death (hence claims for Article 2 rights (right to life) were entertained, and sympathised with).

A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, on 16 December 2004, the House of Lords held that Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, under whose powers a number of non-UK nationals were detained in Belmarsh Prison, was incompatible with the Human Rights Act. This precipitated the enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 to replace Part 4 of the 2001 Act.

R. v. Chauhan and Hollingsworth: Amesh Chauhan and Dean Hollingsworth were photographed by a speed camera in 2000. As is standard practice for those caught in this way, they were sent a form by the police asking them to identify who was driving the vehicle at the time. They protested under the Human Rights Act, arguing that they could not be required to give evidence against themselves. An initial judgment, by Judge Peter Crawford at Birmingham Crown Court, ruled in their favour[30] but this was later reversed. The same issue came to light in Scotland with Procurator Fiscal v Brown [2000] UKPC D3,[31] in which a woman, when apprehended on suspicion of theft of a bottle of gin, was drunk and was asked by police to identify who had been driving her car (which was nearby) at the time she arrived at the superstore.

Price v. Leeds City Council [2005]:[32] On 16 March 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that Leeds City Council could not infringe the right to a home of a Romani family, the Maloneys, by evicting them from public land. The court however referred the case to the House of Lords as this decision conflicted with a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

In March 2006,[citation needed] the High Court in London ruled against a hospital's bid to turn off the ventilator that kept the child, known as Baby MB, alive. The 19-month-old baby has the genetic condition spinal muscular atrophy, which leads to almost total paralysis. The parents of the child fought for his right to life, despite claims from medics that the invasive ventilation would cause an 'intolerable life'.

Connors v. UK,[33] a judgment given by ECtHR, declared that travellers who had their licences to live on local authority-owned land suddenly revoked had been discriminated against, in comparison to the treatment of mobile-home owners who did not belong to the traveller population, and thus their Article 14 (protection from discrimination) and Article 8 (right to respect for the home) rights had been infringed. However, there has never been a case where the Act has been successfully invoked to allow travellers to remain on greenbelt land, and indeed the prospects of this ever happening seem highly unlikely after the House of Lords decision in Kay v Lambeth LBC which severely restricted the occasions on which Article 8 may be invoked to protect someone from eviction in the absence of some legal right over the land.

Afghan hijackers case 2006, in May 2006, a politically controversial decision regarding the treatment of nine Afghan men who hijacked a plane to flee from the Taliban, caused widespread condemnation by many tabloid newspapers (most notably The Sun), the broadsheets and the leaders of both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. It was ruled by an Immigration Tribunal, under the Human Rights Act, that the hijackers could remain in the United Kingdom; a subsequent court decision ruled that the government had abused its power in restricting the hijackers' right to work.

Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited (2008), Max Mosley challenged an invasion of his private life after the News of the World exposed his involvement in a sadomasochistic sex act. The case resulted in Mr Mosley being awarded £60,000 in damages.

[Vicky.]

That was meant to be hurt bloody autocorrect :fist:

I assumed that :p

I would still be ****ed though. lol

Unless I would be OK as I am not a Muslim I guess...

[Denver]

I assumed that :p

I would still be ****ed though. lol

Unless I would be OK as I am not a Muslim I guess...

Well obviously they would have to prove it was more then your mind wondering which they do by checking your phone and computer

[user104658]

I assumed that :p

I would still be ****ed though. lol

Unless I would be OK as I am not a Muslim I guess...

White Widow 2.0 though.

[JoshBB]

right-wing: muslims oppose british human rights! disgusting
right-wing: let's rip up british human rights

[Withano]

right-wing: muslims oppose british human rights! disgusting
right-wing: let's rip up british human rights

:joker: this ismy favourite thread

[James]

I made the last post on a page, and didn't get a response. :sad: I actually wondered what people thought about the example cases.

[bots]

I made the last post on a page, and didn't get a response. :sad: I actually wondered what people thought about the example cases.

its a very dry topic in reality :laugh:. I said in an earlier thread that we are still subject to UK law, which in the majority of cases is equal to or more protective of our rights than we receive from europe. Those laws still need to go through parliament to change them.

[smudgie]

I made the last post on a page, and didn't get a response. :sad: I actually wondered what people thought about the example cases.

I think that human rights is a great thing, until it wonders over to the ridiculous side.
I do think that our own government should be allowed to revisit some of the human right laws if it protects its citizens...all of its citizens.

[Brillopad]

I just read this on another site, is this really what was said? Sorry have had ****ing paw patrol on the majority of the day so haven't actually seen Mays words about it, only whats been posted on here and a few reporters just saying scrapping human rights...



Deport 'suspected' terrorists.

And again, the question needs asked. where would those born here, or those who have lived the majority of their lives here be deported to?

I am fairly uneasy about the idea of punishing people 'suspected' of an offense tbh.

Isn't it obvious - where their allegencies lie and it clearly isn't with Britain. Home is where the heart is and the terrorists' hearts belong elsewhere.

They hate Britain and everything it represents so how can anyone believe Britain is their home. They don't want us and we don't want them.

[Beso]

If you think adding 20 thousand police back onto the beat will protect your human rights more fool you.

[bots]

lets be clear on some things. You can't deport a UK passport holder. Its not possible. You can only deport to the country that they hold a passport for. If they have no passport, you can't deport them without proving their country of origin.

May has identified what she wants to do, she wants to extend the sentences associated with terror crimes .... very specific, and she wants to deport people faster when it is legally possible to do so. She also wants control orders in place to restrict the movements of people when they have known terrorist affiliations.

These are all highly targeted measures

[Brillopad]

lets be clear on some things. You can't deport a UK passport holder. Its not possible. You can only deport to the country that they hold a passport for. If they have no passport, you can't deport them, you have to prove their country of origin.

May has identified what she wants to do, she wants to extend the sentences associated with terror crimes .... very specific, and she wants to deport people faster when it is legally possible to do so. She also wants control orders in place to restrict the movements of people when they have known terrorist affiliations.

These are all highly targeted measures

Laws can be changed. Citizenship can be rescinded/revoked. . Nothing is written in stone.

If for instance you go to fight for another country against the country of your birth then you should no longer be considered a citizen of the country of your birth. You have forfeited that right by such actions.

Such people should be deported to the country they went to fight for. Crystal clear.

[bots]

Laws can be changed. Citizenship can be rescinded/revoked. . Nothing is written in stone.

If for instance you go to fight for another country against the country of your birth then you should no longer be considered a citizen of the country of your birth. You have forfeited that right by such actions.

Such people should be deported to the country they went to fight for. Crystal clear.

In order to deport someone, you have to have the agreement of the country you are deporting too, the rules are not something that any individual country can change because they need the others agreement.

[user104658]

In order to deport someone, you have to have the agreement of the country you are deporting too, the rules are not something that any individual country can change because they need the others agreement.

This is the part people seem to be most confused about; that you can just "send someone" to a country that they do not have citizenship of! "Send them to Syria, their problem."

It's just GB Empire arrogance at play. "Well by jove we'll just send them where we want and if those countries don't like it we have Trident what what."

[Brillopad]

In order to deport someone, you have to have the agreement of the country you are deporting too, the rules are not something that any individual country can change because they need the others agreement.

Surely children born in another country of parents from overseas should have dual citizenship - it should be a condition when people emigrate. The citizenship should be made up of place of birth of the child and homeland/nationality of the parents and the biological and cultural roots/history involved.

So if said child commits heinous crimes in the country of their birth they can be deported back to their parents/grandparents homeland where their biological and cultural roots lie, not to mention their obvious religous and emotional ties. If they have dual citizenship the other country involved cannot refuse to take them back.

That way it places some accountability and responsibility onto the parents and the child to respect and value the country that has taken them in and to realise there are potential consequences for severe abuse of their citizenship.

[user104658]

Surely children born in another country of parents from overseas should have dual citizenship - it should be a condition when people emigrate. The citizenship should be made up of place of birth of the child and homeland/nationality of the parents and the biological and cultural roots/history involved.

So if said child commits heinous crimes in the country of their birth they can be deported back to their parents/grandparents homeland where their biological and cultural roots lie, not to mention their obvious religous and emotional ties. If they have dual citizenship the other country involved cannot refuse to take them back.

That way it places some accountability and responsibility onto the parents and the child to respect and value the country that has taken them in and to realise there are potential consequences for severe abuse of their citizenship.

And how many generations would you suggest this should last? Does it only apply to middle-eastern people or to everyone? Could I be deported to Ireland because I have a great-grandparent on my father's side who was from Ireland? Could I be deported to a Scandinavian country because, somewhere way down the line, I have a little bit of Viking blood? :think:

[user104658]

By the way,

they can be deported back to their parents/grandparents homeland where their biological and cultural roots lie

ARE you aware how close you are edging towards white supremacist rhetoric?

[Kazanne]

Well as Piers Morgan was saying yesterday,we can ban football hooligans from travelling abroad and ban them from places etc,so why cant the same be done for these murdering scumbags?

[user104658]

Well as Piers Morgan was saying yesterday,we can ban football hooligans from travelling abroad and ban them from places etc,so why cant the same be done for these murdering scumbags?

We can't deport them to the homelands of their ancestors, as far as I'm aware :umm2:.

[Vanessa]

All suspected terrorists should e deported before they strike. They shouldn't be allowed to stay if they have extremist views.

[bots]

Well as Piers Morgan was saying yesterday,we can ban football hooligans from travelling abroad and ban them from places etc,so why cant the same be done for these murdering scumbags?

that would be achieved via control orders, restricting their movement.

[Brillopad]

And how many generations would you suggest this should last? Does it only apply to middle-eastern people or to everyone? Could I be deported to Ireland because I have a great-grandparent on my father's side who was from Ireland? Could I be deported to a Scandinavian country because, somewhere way down the line, I have a little bit of Viking blood? :think:

Parents definitely and maybe grandparents too. It offers some protection for true British citizens. - those of us who do respect and value the country of our birth and don't go around murdering those with different views and don't incite the hate and murder of our fellow citizens.

[Brillopad]

By the way,



ARE you aware how close you are edging towards white supremacist rhetoric?

Only in your super sensitive PC mind.

[user104658]

All suspected terrorists should e deported before they strike. They shouldn't be allowed to stay if they have extremist views.

Deported to where if they were born here; and why would those countries want them.

Parents definitely and maybe grandparents too. It offers some protection for true British citizens. - those of us who do respect and value the country of our birth and don't go around murdering those with different views and don't incite the hate and murder of our fellow citizens.

So I'm assuming you agree that all criminals who are British born, or have British born parents or grandparents, should be deported from other countries back to the UK?

[user104658]

Only in your super sensitive PC mind.

:nono: Personal insults, play nice.

[Brillopad]

By the way,



ARE you aware how close you are edging towards white supremacist rhetoric?

Only in your super sensitive PC mind. That's just a 'polite' way of trying to shut me down again with 'racist' allegations.

I am just trying to demonstrate that these terrorists have both physical and emotional ties to their parents homeland - that is blatantly obvious by their actions, and it wouldn't be like deporting them to somewhere where they had no links or sense of belonging. Not they would even deserve that consideration.

[Brillopad]

Deported to where if they were born here; and why would those countries want them.



So I'm assuming you agree that all criminals who are British born, or have British born parents or grandparents, should be deported from other countries back to the UK?

If they commit heinous crime then yes of course. It most definitely should work across the board.

[bots]

Only in your super sensitive PC mind. That's just a 'polite' way of trying to shut me down again with 'racist' allegations.

I am just trying to demonstrate that these terrorists have both physical and emotional ties to their parents homeland - that is blatantly obvious by their actions, and it wouldn't be like deporting them to somewhere where they had no links or sense of belonging. Not they would even deserve that consideration.

When you put someone on a plane out of this country, you need to have agreement of the receiving country else they will be refused entry to the destination country and sent straight back.

I could say I had an affinity with Australia ... you must therefore let me in .... not going to happen :laugh:

[Kazanne]

Only in your super sensitive PC mind. That's just a 'polite' way of trying to shut me down again with 'racist' allegations.

I am just trying to demonstrate that these terrorists have both physical and emotional ties to their parents homeland - that is blatantly obvious by their actions, and it wouldn't be like deporting them to somewhere where they had no links or sense of belonging. Not they would even deserve that consideration.

It's quite simple if they are British,lock them up.

[Brillopad]

When you put someone on a plane out of this country, you need to have agreement of the receiving country else they will be refused entry to the destination country and sent straight back.

I could say I had an affinity with Australia ... you must therefore let me in .... not going to happen :laugh:

If dual citizenship was a condition of migration - the other country could not refuse to take them surely.

[user104658]

If dual citizenship was a condition of migration - the other country could not refuse to take them surely.

Brillo's solution to Britain's terror problems: "Change the entire world and international law to suit Britain!!"

[Brillopad]

Brillo's solution to Britain's terror problems: "Change the entire world and international law to suit Britain!!"

I think many Western countries may well start to think along those lines in the future as it would make sense and be in their best interests given the way things are going.

And probably not just Western countries either - people want to protect their citizens and as terrorism increases around the workd it may be a way forward for everyone.

If European countries for instance are going to be forced by the EU to take in millions of people from other parts of the world they need something to protect their current citizens from a potential future clash of cultural and religous views that may lead to even more terrorist activity.

[Niamh.]

Isn't it obvious - where their allegencies lie and it clearly isn't with Britain. Home is where the heart is and the terrorists' hearts belong elsewhere.

They hate Britain and everything it represents so how can anyone believe Britain is their home. They don't want us and we don't want them.

But you can't force a country that they're not a citizen of to take a criminal, that's ridiculous. If the american police phoned up Britain and said "hey we have this serial killer here who's granny was British and we don't want him anymore so we're sending him over there" What do you think "Britain" would say? lol or would you all have a choice because you're better countries then them desert ones over there?

[Brillopad]

But you can't force a country that they're not a citizen of to take a criminal, that's ridiculous. If the american police phoned up Britain and said "hey we have this serial killer here who's granny was British and we don't want him anymore so we're sending him over there" What do you think "Britain" would say? lol or would you all have a choice because you're better countries then them desert ones over there?

As already mentioned in the thread if they had dual citizenship as a condition of migration we could.

[Niamh.]

As already mentioned in the thread if they had dual citizenship as a condition of migration we could.

But they don't so that's moot point

[Brillopad]

But they don't so that's moot point

They could do in the future - and maybe it could be done retrospectively.

[Niamh.]

They could do in the future - and maybe it could be done retrospectively.

and how far down the lines are you suggesting? :think:

[Brillopad]

and how far down the lines are you suggesting? :think:

As I said definitely parents and maybe grandparents. It would then place some accountability and responsibility on parents etc to do their best to ensure that they and their children respect and value the country they chose to live in/were born into. What's wrong with that.

[user104658]

What you're suggesting is logistically impossible / is never going to happen, Brillo... whether you think it's the best idea in the world or not, it's complete fantasy. It's up there with "We could build a prison colony on Mars and send them all there!". I feel like you probably need to let it go.

[Niamh.]

As I said definitely parents and maybe grandparents. It would then place some accountability and responsibility on parents etc to do their best to ensure that they and their children respect and value the country they chose to live in/were born into. What's wrong with that.

For every nationality living in Britain or just the brown ones? And presumably all the countries that have have British immigrants would do the same to them then?

[Brillopad]

What you're suggesting is logistically impossible / is never going to happen, Brillo... whether you think it's the best idea in the world or not, it's complete fantasy. It's up there with "We could build a prison colony on Mars and send them all there!". I feel like you probably need to let it go.

Hardly - how can you compare dual citizenship with a prison colony on Mars. Dual citizenship is something that already exists, and there is no reason why it could not apply to migrants as well. The other is Star Trek.

[Brillopad]

For every nationality living in Britain or just the brown ones? And presumably all the countries that have have British immigrants would do the same to them then?

I already stated in a question asked but TS that it should apply across the board not just to 'brown ones' - a bit below the belt for you Niamh.

[Niamh.]

I already stated in a question asked but TS that it should apply across the board not just to 'brown ones' - a bit below the belt for you Niamh.

Maybe so, I just find some of the comments in this thread and the other one discussing this subject so hysterical and awful, I'm really shocked tbh

[Brillopad]

Maybe so, I just find some of the comments in this thread and the other one discussing this subject so hysterical and awful, I'm really shocked tbh

These are difficult times - we are all angry.

[Niamh.]

These are difficult times - we are all angry.

Yes that's understandable but you can't punish people because of their religion just incase they might be a terrorist

[bots]

Yes that's understandable but you can't punish people because of their religion just incase they might be a terrorist

red haired people and left handers have got to go ..... back to ireland, its all their fault :laugh:

[Niamh.]

red haired people and left handers have got to go ..... back to ireland, its all their fault :laugh:

Did you know that Red heads actually originated in Central Asia so if we're going that far back, they're going to have to go there I'm afraid

[Brillopad]

Yes that's understandable but you can't punish people because of their religion just incase they might be a terrorist

Did I say that. But I think those convicted of terrorists acts should be sent back after their sentence was served here if they had a dual passport and perhaps those that the intelligence services know are involved in terrorism but don't quite have the evidence required, which is pretty stiff in this country, to get a conviction as they pose a Hugh risk to the rest of us.

I never said anything about deporting people based on their religious beliefs alone.

[Niamh.]

Did I say that. But I think those convicted of terrorists acts should be sent back after their sentence was served here if they had a dual passport and perhaps those that the intelligence services know are involved in terrorism but don't quite have the evidence required, which is pretty stiff in this country, to get a conviction as they pose a Hugh risk to the rest of us.

I never said anything about deporting people based on their religious beliefs alone.

But you want to go back through generations of immigrants and basically take away their citizenship. Also, why would the country they came from even agree to that. It makes no sense

[Brillopad]

Did you know that Red heads actually originated in Central Asia so if we're going that far back, they're going to have to go there I'm afraid

Sorry Niamh but this is a serious issue and all our lives are affected by it and I don't see why we should all have to live in fear in order to preserve the rights of terrorists which is what it amounts to.

[Niamh.]

Sorry Niamh but this is a serious issue and all our lives are affected by it and I don't see why we should all have to live in fear in order to preserve the rights of terrorists which is what it amounts to.

No one is trying to "preserve the rights of the terrorist" what are you actually on about?

[Brillopad]

But you want to go back through generations of immigrants and basically take away their citizenship. Also, why would the country they came from even agree to that. It makes no sense

Only a generation or two for those that commit terrorist acts and murder people. Many of these Terrorists spend half their time in these counties anyway so I really don't see what the problem is.

They are murderers and will always pose a risk. Surely the safety of the many over the rights of the few should prevail.

[Brillopad]

No one is trying to "preserve the rights of terrorist" what are you actually on about?

Their rights as British citizens not to be deported. What do you have against dual citizenship as a means of overcoming that issue for those that pose the biggest risk. I really don't get it.

[Niamh.]

Their rights as British citizens not to be deported. What do you have against dual citizenship as a means of overcoming that issue for those that pose the biggest risk. I really don't get it.

OMG it's not their right not to be deported it's the country who they're not even a citizen ofs right not to just take a criminal off your hands, jesus how is that hard to understand. Britain isn't in charge of the world, they can't just tell other countries they have to take their criminals because the criminals granny came from there :laugh:

[Jack_]

OMG it's not their right not to be deported it's the country who they're not even a citizen ofs right not to just take a criminal off your hands, jesus how is that hard to understand. Britain isn't in charge of the world, they can't just tell other countries they have to take their criminals because the criminals granny came from there :laugh:

Yes they can, we're Great ****ing Britain! We'll send the dirty immigrants wherever we like! And if they were born here, we'll send them to one of those weird Asian countries you see on the news! We're taking back control! Fish and chips for everyone so long as you're not a terrorist! Refugee scum! EU scum! Benefits scum! Rule ****in' Britannia! :cheer2:

[Niamh.]

Yes they can, we're Great ****ing Britain! We'll send the dirty immigrants wherever we like! And if they were born here, we'll send them to one of those weird Asian countries you on the news! We're taking back control! Fish and chips for everyone so long as you're not a terrorist! Refugee scum! EU scum! Benefits scum! Rule ****in' Britannia! :cheer2:

:laugh:

I think i need to bow out of this thread now for my own sake and sanity

[Brillopad]

Yes they can, we're Great ****ing Britain! We'll send the dirty immigrants wherever we like! And if they were born here, we'll send them to one of those weird Asian countries you on the news! We're taking back control! Fish and chips for everyone so long as you're not a terrorist! Refugee scum! EU scum! Benefits scum! Rule ****in' Britannia! :cheer2:

Exaggeration and putting words in people's mouths as usual. What does that achieve - nothing.

If you want to live amongst known terrorists that is your choice but guess what most don't and we have to live here too. Your views don't just affect you but everyone else as well. So you know what you can do with your inflammatory allegations don't you!

Are there no ISIS terrorists in Britain then, are none of us at risk of harm - or is it all just a figment of my hateful imagination. Waste of time.

[Jack_]

Exaggeration and putting words in people's mouths

If you want to live amongst known terrorists

okay

[user104658]

Only a generation or two for those that commit terrorist acts and murder people. Many of these Terrorists spend half their time in these counties anyway so I really don't see what the problem is.

They are murderers and will always pose a risk. Surely the safety of the many over the rights of the few should prevail.

I don't know if you've noticed, Brillo, but there are actually people in those other countries too :think:. Apparently you think it's "safer for the many" to deport them to another country and say "Oh well lol whatever they're not here now" than it is to keep them where we can actually keep an eye on them...

[Brillopad]

okay

Are you trying to say we have no terrorists amongst us. You can 'okay' to hell and back but if you can't answer a straight question with a straight answer then your allegations are everything you are trying to accuse me of.

[Brillopad]

I don't know if you've noticed, Brillo, but there are actually people in those other countries too :think:. Apparently you think it's "safer for the many" to deport them to another country and say "Oh well lol whatever they're not here now" than it is to keep them where we can actually keep an eye on them...

A reasonable question at least. I see what you're saying but it's natural to think of you and yours and I have no delusions that those other countries would not do the same in the same situation. If we can do more to protect ourselves we should.

[Jack_]

Are you trying to say we have no terrorists amongst us. You can 'okay' to hell and back but if you can't answer a straight question with a straight answer then your allegations are everything you are trying to accuse me of.

No, I was merely alluding to the fact you accused me of 'exaggeration' and 'putting words in people's mouths' and then in the next breath wrote 'if you want to live amongst known terrorists'. You couldn't have made a bigger jump.

[Tom4784]

Brillo going back to her 'if you don't agree with me you're basically a terrorist sympathiser' schtick when her silly suggestions about essentially bringing back exile (and taking the very North Korean approach of punishing multiple generations in the process) is shot down because it's not realistic, possible or even a good idea? I'm shocked.

People with a British passport or citizenship are our responsibility to bring to justice, the idea of desperately looking for an excuse to hand people over to other countries is laughable and wrong. The level of extremism from certain right wing members in this section is getting rather worrisome.

[Brillopad]

Brillo going back to her 'if you don't agree with me you're basically a terrorist sympathiser' schtick when her silly suggestions about essentially bringing back exile (and taking the very North Korean approach of punishing multiple generations in the process) is shot down because it's not realistic, possible or even a good idea? I'm shocked.

People with a British passport or citizenship are our responsibility to bring to justice, the idea of desperately looking for an excuse to hand people over to other countries is laughable and wrong. The level of extremism from certain right wing members in this section is getting rather worrisome.

My posts do not justify attempting to call me a right-ring extremist. That is ridiculous.

People have talked of the possibility of deportation of TERRORISTS (seems necessarry to highlight that word) for some time now including the government. I was suggesting a viable way that maybe that could be achieved. I know you will never agree with it that but don't you dare try to use this to call me a right-ring extremist.

And btw I never suggested you were a terrorist sympathiser, you took it that way to suit. So you think I have implied that so you get your revenge by calling me a right-wing extremist. I have never committed a terrorist attack in my life thank you - and you talk of boundaries.

And no need for the 'her' - if you want to make such comments then have the decency to address me personally rather than say 'Brillo, going back to her....'. Weak, putting it mildly.

:nono:

[user104658]

My posts do not justify attempting to call me a right-ring extremist. That is ridiculous.

People have talked of the possibility of deportation of TERRORISTS (seems necessarry to highlight that word) for some time now including the government. I was suggesting a viable way that maybe that could be achieved. I know you will never agree with it that but don't you dare try to use this to call me a right-ring extremist.

And btw I never suggested you were a terrorist sympathiser, you took it that way to suit. So you think I have implied that so you get your revenge by calling me a right-wing extremist. I have never committed a terrorist attack in my life thank you - and you talk of boundaries. :nono:

I wouldn't call you a right-wing extremist because you don't have the power to actually enact any of your bizarre fantasies. But I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that you are a... right-wing extremist sympathiser? You promote and express admiration of extreme right-wing measures, surely?

[Brillopad]

I wouldn't call you a right-wing extremist because you don't have the power to actually enact any of your bizarre fantasies. But I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that you are a... right-wing extremist sympathiser? You promote and express admiration of extreme right-wing measures, surely?

By deporting terrorists! In what other way have I demonstrated being a right-wing sympathiser? :shrug:

You lean left I lean right - no extremism involved on either side, unless of course you have something substantial to substantiate such a bizarre comment. :shrug:

[Tom4784]

My posts do not justify attempting to call me a right-ring extremist. That is ridiculous.

People have talked of the possibility of deportation of TERRORISTS (seems necessarry to highlight that word) for some time now including the government. I was suggesting a viable way that maybe that could be achieved. I know you will never agree with it that but don't you dare try to use this to call me a right-ring extremist.

And btw I never suggested you were a terrorist sympathiser, you took it that way to suit. So you think I have implied that so you get your revenge by calling me a right-wing extremist. I have never committed a terrorist attack in my life thank you - and you talk of boundaries.

And no need for the 'her' - if you want to make such comments then have the decency to address me personally rather than say 'Brillo, going back to her....'. Weak, putting it mildly.

:nono:

You are not a politician, mentioning the word 'terrorist' at every opportunity won't adhere people to your views, nor will suggesting that anyone who thinks differently has sympathy towards terrorism. Don't deny you've not insinuated that because you have.

Nothing you have suggested is viable, We can't force people out of the country and onto other countries because of a vague ancestral link. You only think it's viable because you don't understand international law.

Also because you seem quite confused on the matter, extremist does not always equal terrorist. Katie Hopkins is an extremist, Richard Spencer is an extremist, UKIP is half full of extremists, Trump is an extremist etc. None of them will commit acts of terror but they are still extreme in their views.

[user104658]

By deporting terrorists! In what other way have I demonstrated being a right-wing sympathiser? :shrug:

You lean left I lean right - no extremism involved on either side, unless of course you have something substantial to substantiate such a bizarre comment. :shrug:

The concept of deporting 3rd generation immigrants to non-specific countries of "genetic and cultural origin" as a counter-terror measure. Supporting armed soldiers being on our streets. Advocating the removal or reducation of civil liberties in exchange for "keeping us safe". The idea that every Muslim immigrant is responsible for curbing the actions of extremists. None of these are just "right leaning", Brillo, at least have the courage of your convictions.

[Kazanne]

Exaggeration and putting words in people's mouths as usual. What does that achieve - nothing.

If you want to live amongst known terrorists that is your choice but guess what most don't and we have to live here too. Your views don't just affect you but everyone else as well. So you know what you can do with your inflammatory allegations don't you!

Are there no ISIS terrorists in Britain then, are none of us at risk of harm - or is it all just a figment of my hateful imagination. Waste of time.

Really don't know why you bother Brillo,it's no good having a different opinion on here.come and have a cuppa you gobby mare,LOL

[bots]

Really don't know why you bother Brillo,it's no good having a different opinion on here.come and have a cuppa you gobby mare,LOL

i think its important that all avenues are explored so that everyone has a deeper understanding of how things work, and what we can do to resolve the situation. Its not like we don't all want a solution

[Kazanne]

i think its important that all avenues are explored so that everyone has a deeper understanding of how things work, and what we can do to resolve the situation. Its not like we don't all want a solution

I agree BOTS,I just feel brillo is shutdown by some on everything she posts,it's not needed,and not nice,we are all entitalled to a differening opinion infact it makes the forum more interesting,I just feel a few hostile tones.:wavey:

[Brillopad]

Really don't know why you bother Brillo,it's no good having a different opinion on here.come and have a cuppa you gobby mare,LOL

Anytime Kaz!:hee:

[Niamh.]

I agree BOTS,I just feel brillo is shutdown by some on everything she posts,it's not needed,and not nice,we are all entitalled to a differening opinion infact it makes the forum more interesting,I just feel a few hostile tones.:wavey:

Disagreeing with someone does not equal shutting someone down. Brillo has made some strange suggestions, like deporting British people to countries they're not from, you have to expect some people to respond to that pretty strongly

[Brillopad]

The concept of deporting 3rd generation immigrants to non-specific countries of "genetic and cultural origin" as a counter-terror measure. Supporting armed soldiers being on our streets. Advocating the removal or reducation of civil liberties in exchange for "keeping us safe". The idea that every Muslim immigrant is responsible for curbing the actions of extremists. None of these are just "right leaning", Brillo, at least have the courage of your convictions.

Nothing substantial in that little list. Is that it?

Commonsense determines we need armed soldiers on the streets at the moment, how you manage to describe that as right-wing is beyond me. And nothing wrong with people feeling Muslims should speak up more against ISIS.

If you really feel any of the above are right-wing extremism maybe that's because you must be at the other extreme and that's why such views seem so far out there to you.

[Brillopad]

I wouldn't call you a right-wing extremist because you don't have the power to actually enact any of your bizarre fantasies. But I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that you are a... right-wing extremist sympathiser? You promote and express admiration of extreme right-wing measures, surely?

What power is there in being a terrorist - just a gang of armed thugs who target innocent unarmed people. I wouldn't call that power - just cowardice.

[Niamh.]

What power is there in being a terrorist - just a gang of armed thugs who target innocent unarmed people. I wouldn't call that power - just cowardice.

I don't think he was suggesting that you don't have the Power to become a terrorist.

[user104658]

What power is there in being a terrorist - just a gang of armed thugs who target innocent unarmed people. I wouldn't call that power - just cowardice.
I'm not "bigging up terrorists" ffs, just pointing out that you're (thankfully) not in a position where you can actually influence or further your bizarre hard right "bloodline exile policy".

[Brillopad]

I'm not "bigging up terrorists" ffs, just pointing out that you're (thankfully) not in a position where you can actually influence or further your bizarre hard right "bloodline exile policy".

Hard right, if you say so.

[user104658]

Hard right, if you say so.
I do say so and, if we've learned anything from the last couple of months on Tibb, it's that I'm always right.

Or that you're always... Err... right.

[Brillopad]

I do say so and, if we've learned anything from the last couple of months on Tibb, it's that I'm always right.

Or that you're always... Err... right.

Oops forgot you're the font of all knowledge - in your head anyway. Dream away.