[Kizzy]

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

[bots]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Livia]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

Thanks Liv - I know EXACTLY what you mean.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.