[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.

[Tom4784]

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

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

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, clever marketing!

[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.

[Livia]

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

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

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

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

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

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

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

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

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

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

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

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

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

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

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

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

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

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

[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.

[Kizzy]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?