To not want my human rights torn up?

[futuristic1]

I thought we weren't going to let them change the way we live?

"When someone proves a link between the terror situation and police numbers."

Absolutely.

Though when attempting to debate the obvious link, were sent off into smoke and mirrors deflection arguments. Of course the Tories are reponsible for ISIS, and of course theyre going to throw all your 'human rights' in the bin and lock everyone up on a whim.

Deflection, smoke and mirrors, finger pointing and blame shifting. Have I missed anything in this thread?

No one's talking about 'your human rights torn up' for heaven's sake, it's about ensuring that potential terrorists slipping through the net.

They're counting on gullible idiocy like this.

"When someone proves a link between the terror situation and police numbers."

Well, the police seem to think it exists. What with them having to work double shifts and all.......

Oh the drama, Hardcore. This isn't Nazi Germany. This is the country that defeated Nazi Germany.

And this is the country who, as a result of that experience, viewed it as essential that a Human Rights Convention be put in place, largely drafted by British lawyers, and which was the first country to sign up to that Convention. What has changed since then?

The current standards of human rights favour the criminally minded too much - such as the scum who claim it's their human right to stay in uk despite the fact that they have killed people in their home country, or we can't look closer at possible extremists as it's against their human rights. It's a crap scheme.

If it stops the hideous massacres we've had recently then revisiting and, where appropriate, revisions made then I for one am all for it.

But it very clearly won't. So will you happy about living in a society where those massacres happen and you have no human rights?

Creampastry, I suggest you have a look at the case law around human rights. There is absolutely nothing in human rights legislation that prevents us from "looking closer" at extremists - how do you imagine we successfully manage to foil the majority of terrorist plots if not by "looking closer"? And no-one gets to stay in the country when they have killed people in their home country just by claiming human rights; there are high hurdles that they have to surmount.

It's a crap scheme.

Sorry, exactly what scheme are you referring to?

1999 then, the year before the Human Rights Act?

Except the UK has been a signatory - and bound by - the ECHR since 1948.

The HRA just allowed UK courts to decide on ECHR cases, rather than (as with the Thalidomide scandal) having to drag it for years through European courts.

Once again, it's clear a lot of people don't really know what they are talking about.

An awful lot of the rhetoric seems to center around deportation, has it completely gone over people's heads that the majority of people involved in terror attacks are born here or British? where exactly do you plan on deporting them to?

Someone said house arrest for British extremists. With guards presumably? With firearms? Powers of arrest? 24/7/365?

Erm.....wouldn't that be a police officer?!

There were approx. 5,600 foreign national offenders removed from the country in 2015.

Also, " in 2015, 12,056 enforced removals and 26,900 voluntary departures were subject to an assessment for a harm rating, of which 19% (2,333) and 1% (203) respectively were assessed as ‘highest harm’."

It's not that we don't have the powers to do these things. We already do these things.

The HRA is intended to prevent abuses by the state (its agencies) against its citizens. It has nothing to do with preventing terrorism, catching terrorists, detaining criminals, deporting criminals etc. To pretend that it does is just deceitful.

LIkewise, the "right to a family life" does not prevent a criminal from being deported, as the family still has the option to maintain that family life in the country to which the criminal is being deported.

If you read the cases where Theresa May has previously argued that the HRA and right to family life prevented a criminal from being deported, you will find it's just not true. Those cases failed for other reasons, usually as a result of Home Office incompetence. Theresa May does not want to be held to account by the law so she would rather just get rid of this obstacle, to the detriment of law abiding citizens.

Theresa May wants to turn a blind eye to her own incompetence and is using this opportunity to turn the UK into a police state where ordinary law abiding citizens have no rights. This is a scary prospect considering that the police (and other Government agencies) are fallible (and sometimes corrupt) and miscarriages of justice do happen. Eroding our civil liberties would just magnify this effect.

If you think it won't affect you. You're wrong!

Well said ShootingStar.

Lurking
the reference was to the HRA, not the ECHR, as well you know. You are deliberately conflating the two, for effect. That is deliberately obtuse, then you choose to append rudeness on the back of it?

Once again, it's clear a lot of people don't really know what they are talking about.

Including, I strongly suspect, Theresa May.

Well, if her knowledge about human rights is on a par with her knowledge regarding the evil interwebs and international trade negotiations we are all in trouble.

'An awful lot of the rhetoric seems to center around deportation, has it completely gone over people's heads that the majority of people involved in terror attacks are born here or British? where exactly do you plan on deporting them to?'

Again, as has been said repeatedly, deportation for dual nationalities. For British born jihadists who return from Syria or jihadi wannabes removal of any right to free speech, free movement, removal of passports so they can't skip about to Libya or Syria again. Remove their access to the internet, enforce similar rules as with paedophiles. Tag them. Rather than have M15 watching from a distance until they do something.

I asked on the other 'its all TM's fault' thread but no one answered. Whose 'fault' was 2005 if this is all solely down to Tm's reducing police numbers and not the actual forced tolerance to radicals because of 'their right to free speech' for the last decade?

the reference was to the HRA, not the ECHR, as well you know. You are deliberately conflating the two, for effect. That is deliberately obtuse, then you choose to append rudeness on the back of it?

The HRA is an act of the UK parliament which allows UK courts to adjudicate in matters that otherwise would have proceeded to the ECHR. It effectively removes the need for people to go to the ECHR in the first instance - which could take years.

Even if you repealed the HRA, the UK would still be bound by it's acceptance of the ECHR.

I was specifically replying to a question:

'Was hospital treatment so radically different in 1999 then, the year before the Human Rights Act?'

a question which implies that either the UK did not have Human Rights until the HRA or the HRA was responsible for allowing people to press for their Human Rights which they had previously been unable to do. Both are incorrect statements of fact. And incorrect statement of fact although not conclusive, is certainly a suggestion that someone does not understand the underlying subject.

All very well to bristle at my rudeness, and then ignore the enormous implications of what I wrote. Specifically that prior to the HRA, UK courts were unable to hear ECHR cases, so people were forced to take them to the ECHR themselves. A lengthy, and costly procedure (so expect this to be the first assault on our rights). Which is all very well, until you realise that the only reason the UK public ever got to hear about - and claim compensation for - the Thalidomide scandal is because the Sunday Times fought a case all the way to the ECHR in 1979 allowing them to publish their investigations.

www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3101/en/echr:-the-sunday-times-v.-the-united-kingdom

notice how it took over 8 years.

So, for all the people here, salivating at the prospect of giving up their own rights because Auntie Theresa says so, don't act all surprised when the first effect is big corporations using UK courts to silence any criticism or debate, because that is exactly what will happen.

Want to write about a dangerous product ? Be prepared to lose your house (and liberty when you can't pay) when BigCorp slams you for damages.

Want to complain about how your Nan was treated in a care home ? Sorry, BigCorps profits might suffer, and you don't have that right anymore.

How do you identify jihadis?

Just try giving the police the resources they need.

Keep your Tory hands off our human rights!

Wether they are after us or not at the moment! This will only lead to them taking away all human rights! It's down right not on!

'How do you identify jihadis'

Oh I think returning from Syria is a big clue, or through surveillance on social network sites. These people aren't very bright and actually seem keen to share their views.

Oh I think returning from Syria is a big clue

What if they don't return from Syria? What if they don't openly share views on social media (which will be less likely if snooping powers are increased and they go underground).

Then what.

'What if they don't return from Syria? What if they don't openly share views on social media '

Some. It is a way to identify some and then tag/monitor/remove internet access to those that do. I clearly can't tell you how to identify every single one