Man 'knifes French woman and her three daughters for being lightly dressed' in Alps resort

[bkgirl]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/man-stabs-french-woman-and-her-three-daughters-for-being-scantil/

Just wait for the excuses...
He was gay/bisexual and misunderstood.
He had mental health problems.
They were wearing bathing suits and it offended him.
They were outside with a male.
They asked for it.

Just getting very fed up with neoliberal clap trap.
I hope the little girl pulls through. :(

[bkgirl]

*They were outside with a male.
should be "without"

[DrinkFeckArseGirls]

Awful but why in EU Referendum?

[ErrolTheDragon]

Nope ... I don't think you'll find many people trying to excuse a violent misogynist man (whether he tries to use religion as an excuse or not) attacking children and a woman.

[MachiKoro]

What has it to do with the referendum?
He obviously does have a MH issue. No-one stabs people without a reason.

[LordRothermereBlackshirtCunt]

Not sure what this has to do with neoliberalism? Or, as others have said, the referendum.

[DonkeyOaty]

What is neo liberal claptrap? A terrible thing has happened and you're making some kind of political point on the back of it

[P1nkP0ppy]

And the connection to the EU Referendum is?

Very sad.

[ErrolTheDragon]

Donkey - this is really a TAAT, I think.

[DonkeyOaty]

oh gosh sorry

Thanks Erroll

[Whatslovegottodo]

Awful news. Thoughts are with the family.

As for you Op, terrible to be posting such inflammatory stuff. Why bring sexuality into it?!

[DrinkFeckArseGirls]

I think the Nice attacker was bi-sexual and the OP suggests that could be used to "understand" the perpetrator.

[bkgirl]

We have to deal with this.
No it's not inflammatory, look at the press after recent terrorist murders.

Why is it anything to do with the EU.
You know it is, it's to do with global migration and culture. These attacks are being carried out by islamic fundamentalists who no doubt are in every European city. We need to step up intelligence.


I don't think sexuality, culture, or ethinicity IS an acceptable excuse for ANYONE breaking the law. That is my point. I think we all need to be treated equally but it's simply not happening.

Look at this...
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-new-years-eve-mass-sex-attacks-leaked-document-a7130476.html

How many have been convicted? What 2?

And this..
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/sex-assaults-sweden-stockholm-music-festival

This article is right. By not treating people equally by making excuses for crime terrorist or not - we are dividing society on racial/cultural lines.

This goes back to one rule of law for all and applied equally.

Here are examples or the reporting......

europe.newsweek.com/nice-attacker-mohamed-bouhlel-was-bisexual-investigators-say-481221

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639961/Orlando-terrorist-went-gay-club-Pulse-dozen-times-got-drunk-belligerent-talked-wife-kid-massacring-49-people-there.html

[squoosh]

'Awful but why in EU Referendum?'

Quite.

[bkgirl]

You cannot deal with terrorism by ignoring it.
The first thing you need to do is - stop making terrorists. Whether it's bombing their families to bits or invading countries for their oil.

Secondly wake up to the arms traders and who they are. Could politicians that love to send our kids to war also be getting rich from their shares/directorships in the arms industry? Hell yeah.

Third. Intelligence is key and believe it or not - flipping them. You foster/ pay supergrasses. Use tech to watch people online. Often they will give away clues that they are prepared to kill.

Fourth I think we need to change the human rights laws so that if you DO terrrorism or Preach it you have acted in an inhumane manner and you don't deserve the same rights as the people you killed. On the same theme, we need to be able to extradite people who are dangerous to the nation.

[GeekLove]

Amen to bkgirl
We also have to ensure safety for those who see religious leaders and other authority figures grooming others for terrorism and that those who are fleeing homes where this occurs.

Also people in any religious community have a duty to ensure that fanaticism is curbed as it harms everyone.

[LurkingHusband]

Just another comment that this has as much to do with the EU referendum as my choice of underwear today.

Fourth I think we need to change the human rights laws so that if you DO terrrorism or Preach it you have acted in an inhumane manner and you don't deserve the same rights as the people you killed.

In that case, they aren't human rights. They are some humans rights. Great if you're on the side that chooses, not so good if you're not. Any attempt to classify what humans get rights is going to be a greased slippery slope to the bottom.

Remember, a criminal is only what a government says a criminal is. Nothing more, nothing less.

[SonicSpotlight]

What do you think neoliberal means?

[bkgirl]

No LurkingHusband I honestly don't think if you preachor do hatred whereby its good to rip peoples throats open, blow people apart, run over them, gouge their eyes out all in the name of religion or culture then you don't deserve anything more than the most basic rights.

Theresa May had some thoughts on all this
rightsinfo.org/theresa-may-wants-us-leave-european-convention-human-rights/
In her fist major speech on the question of whether we should #Brexit from the European Union, the Home Secretary said this about the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

But as I have said before, the case for remaining a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights – which means Britain is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights – is not clear. Because, despite what people sometimes think, it wasn’t the European Union that delayed for years the extradition of Abu Hamza, almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada, and tried to tell Parliament that – however we voted – we could not deprive prisoners of the vote. It was the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes
of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its Court.

I can already hear certain people saying this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950, when the Convention was drafted, or in 1998, when it was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain – the country of Magna Carta, Parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world – and we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of Parliament. A true British Bill of Rights – decided by Parliament and amended by Parliament – would protect not only the rights set out in the Convention but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR, such as the right to trial by jury.

I also know that others will say there is little point in leaving the ECHR if we remain members of the EU, with its Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Court of Justice. And I am no fan of the Charter or of many of the rulings made by the Court. But there are several problems that do apply to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, yet do not apply to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Strasbourg is in effect a final appeals court; Luxembourg has no such role. Strasbourg can issue orders preventing the deportation of foreign nationals; Luxembourg has no such power. Unlike the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Treaties are clear: “national security,” they say, “remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.”

And unlike the ECHR, which is a relatively narrow human rights convention, our membership of the EU involves cooperation – and, yes, rules and obligations – on a much wider range of issues. The country’s decision in the referendum is therefore a much more complex undertaking. So I want to spend some time to go through the most important issues we need to consider.

[bkgirl]

Sorry left out quotes on Theresa Mays words above.

[prettybird]

I think we need to spell out what "neoliberal" means in words or one or maybe two syllable(s).

Contrary to what many some think, it doesn't mean the nice, fluffy, left wing liberalism that we categorise as "Liberal" in the the UK.

It is the anthesis of left wing mollycoddling or even of Champagne socialism.

It is American right wing dogma: anti state intervention, "liberating" the markets and society to do their own thing Allowing the individual to "take control" - no need for a safety net as you've been liberated to make your own choices.

Trump and the Tea Party are the epitome (as in, good examples of, if their policies are enacted) of neoliberalism.

[LurkingHusband]

No LurkingHusband I honestly don't think if you preachor do hatred whereby its good to rip peoples throats open, blow people apart, run over them, gouge their eyes out all in the name of religion or culture then you don't deserve anything more than the most basic rights.

Hang on, where did "basic" come from ?

You do realise that most human rights are also qualified don't you ? So that the "right to freedom" is actually balanced by the fact that a properly constituted court can remove it.

It's not the "human right" Theresa May has a problem with. It's the "properly constituted court". Successive UK governments have repeated tried to lock up people they don't like without a trial. And the right to a fair trial is a "basic human right".

1 degree.

[LurkingHusband]

I think we need to spell out what "neoliberal" means

easy.

"neo" = "not-".

job done.

[bkgirl]

What do you think neoliberal means?

www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

This is slightly off the point but lets take Owen Smith as a classic neoliberal.

He was Head of Policy & Government Relations for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer ....
"On Channel 4 News last night, an incredulous Michael Crick pointed out that the “soft left” Smith had previously given interviews supporting PFI and privatisation in the health service. He also strongly supported Blair’s city academies.

As chief lobbyist for Pfizer, Smith actively pushed for privatisation of NHS services. This is not something Pfizer did very openly, and you have to search the evidence carefully. Footnotes often tell you what is really happening, as in this press release in which Owen Smith says of a Pfizer funded “focus group” study:

We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the agenda.
You have to look at the footnotes to see what kind of choice Owen Smith is actually talking about. Note to Editors 3 includes

“The focus groups also explored areas of choice that do not yet exist in the UK – most specifically the use of direct payments and the ability to choose to go directly to a specialist without first having to see the GP.”
Well, at least it is clear – direct payments from the public to doctors replacing current NHS services. Smith was promoting straight privatisation. As Head of Policy and Government Relations for Pfizer, Owen Smith was also directly involved in Pfizer’s funding of Blairite right wing entryist group Progress. Pfizer gave Progress £53,000. Progress has actively pursued the agenda of PFI and privatisation of NHS services."

Wasn't he also one of the 40 MP's who attended the dinner for the arms trade ADS?

[hugoagogo]

Oh my, you would imagine any sensible person would take a cursory glance at world affairs and conclude that the sort of ideas the op is in favour of, would only make the world more unsafe.

[Theydontknowweknowtheyknow]

I'm assuming you mean liberal OP not neo-liberal. And not even real liberals but what is known as the Regressive Left.