[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

Horrific stuff. Truly horrific.

Dead right.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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/...e-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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

I have Irish on my Dad's side, they could send me to live in Niamh's spare room

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

No need to add to this

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]

Originally Posted by 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...



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.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

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

'suspected'?

[Kizzy]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-of-terrorists

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

'suspected'?

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

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by Adam.

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 And a lot of other people who search stuff about terror attacks actually.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

That was meant to be hurt bloody autocorrect

[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/Europe...n_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.