[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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

Thank you Alex - Common Sense.

[Kizzy]

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

Ok guys.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

Ok guys.

IS - an unknown entity?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

IS - an unknown entity?

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

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

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

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

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

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

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

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

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

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

[DemolitionRed]

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

[Kizzy]

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


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

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

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...international/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ortant-to-rush

[DemolitionRed]

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

Oh don't get me started on this one

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

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

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

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

[bots]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Oh don't get me started on this one

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

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

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

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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

[JoshBB]

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

[Livia]

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

[DemolitionRed]

The naivety on this thread is astounding.

[kirklancaster]

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

[Livia]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

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

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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

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

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

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

Oh Groan.

[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?