Page 17 | To not want my human rights torn up?

futuristic1 · 2017-06-07T06:19:35+00:00

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

WalkingOnLeg0 · 07/06/2017 16:22

It does seem that security experts are able say who is a dangerous extremist but that they cant do anything until they actually commit a crime. If the police think they are a danger I want them locked up before they commit a crime not after. And if that gets the heckles up of some liberals they I am happy to accept that for the sake of my children.

WeakAndUnstable · 07/06/2017 16:23

I've posted this on another thread. It's taken from "Die Welt" (German news outlet) and opines that Theresa May is now adopting Erdogan's approach to politics, specifically with regard to human rights. (Erdogan = Turkish President)

www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165299374/Mays-spontane-Harte-Hand-Politik-folgt-der-Methode-Erdogan.html

For anyone not familiar with Turkish politics, Erdogan is a populist, authoritarian dictator.

LurkingHusband · 07/06/2017 16:23

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.

Like Khuram Butt ?

Butt was known to police and security services - an investigation into him began in 2015, when one man called the terrorism hotline after concerns that Butt had been radicalised.

Pentapus · 07/06/2017 16:24

lurking

Anyone with a reasonable dose of EQ should be aware that their message will be lost if they act like an arsehole. In fact, it only serves to alienate.

Believeitornot · 07/06/2017 16:26

This is why community policing is so so important. Local police with good community links - people can report concerns to them and the police can join the dots.

It's lazy to assume that you can do this by looking through Facebook.

As for seeing if they come back from Syria - that requires a decent border force which has been decimated by Theresa May.

LurkingHusband · 07/06/2017 16:27

It does seem that security experts are able say who is a dangerous extremist but that they cant do anything until they actually commit a crime. If the police think they are a danger I want them locked up before they commit a crime not after. And if that gets the heckles up of some liberals they I am happy to accept that for the sake of my children.

So your neighbour - who got pissed off with you once, because you parked in their space - anonymously rings the police, and mentions they suspect you are a terrorist.

Luckily, in the new non-HRA landscape, evidence is considered a leftwing plot, so you get locked up. However, you aren't at all unhappy. After all, as you said, yourself : "I want them locked up before they commit a crime"

???????????

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 16:28

'Like Khuram Butt ?'

No. As I said, not all. Some. If they are known to security services either through returning from Syria, radical stuff on social media or whatever else, now that should be enough to not just 'be known' but to be tagged with strict freedom of speech and freedom of activities restrictions on them

LurkingHusband · 07/06/2017 16:28

Pentapus

Anyone with a reasonable dose of EQ should be aware that their message will be lost if they act like an arsehole. In fact, it only serves to alienate.

?

Pentapus · 07/06/2017 16:32

does seem that security experts are able say who is a dangerous extremist but that they cant do anything until they actually commit a crime.

I don't think they can with any great degree of accuracy. And I don't think that's just down to resources.
With all the resources in the world, you are still not going to be able to precisely predict individual human behaviour. And even less so if we are talking about numbers in the thousands. Which is why I believe that additional approaches are needed.

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 16:33

'So your neighbour - who got pissed off with you once, because you parked in their space - anonymously rings the police, and mentions they suspect you are a terrorist.'

Honestly. No, there would have to be some evidence such as returning from Syria, spouting radical stuff online etc etc the stuff that gets them 'known' to them in the first place.

Didn't you claim earlier anyone of us could be a criminal or a terrorist if the CPS said so. Did you respond to my 'what and how?!!' I didn't see it.

theymademejoin · 07/06/2017 16:48

WalkingOnLeg0
You state: It does seem that security experts are able say who is a dangerous extremist but that they cant do anything until they actually commit a crime. If the police think they are a danger I want them locked up before they commit a crime not after. And if that gets the heckles up of some liberals they I am happy to accept that for the sake of my children.

All well and good until you or your children are the ones detained.

Think it could never happen as you are law-abiding? Annie Maguire and Giuseppe Conlon and the rest of the Maguire 7 were extremely law-abiding. They supported the police. They would have claimed if you were law-abiding you had nothing to fear. Yet a 13 year old child was arrested and sentenced to 4 years in prison because of abuse of the anti-terrorism legislation.

You can read the story of the child sent to prison in the UK in his book: Patrick Maguire, My Father's Watch: The Story of a Child Prisoner in 70s Britain

WalkingOnLeg0 · 07/06/2017 16:51

So your neighbour - who got pissed off with you once, because you parked in their space - anonymously rings the police, and mentions they suspect you are a terrorist.

Yea thats how policing works

EleanorRigbysNeice · 07/06/2017 16:55

Theymademejoin I agree with Lego on that. If a person stands in the street with banners describing what they are going to do to those who don't convert to Islam, waving flags and preaching vileness, they should be locked up/deported

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 16:55

Theymademejohn not sure of the relevance of a case from 40 yrs ago?

WalkingOnLeg0 · 07/06/2017 16:56

All well and good until you or your children are the ones detained
I am willing to take that risk, we aren't talking about the death penalty here. If the police make a mistake and lock up one innocent person verses saving the lives of dozens, maybe hundreds of our children, then its worth the price.

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 16:58

' If a person stands in the street with banners describing what they are going to do to those who don't convert to Islam, waving flags and preaching vileness,"
Yes we've all seen it. Why are people suggesting removing their human rights is a bad thing? No it doesn't mean our neighbours will accuse us of being terrorists and the CPS will believe them.

PlinkyTheFairyWitch · 07/06/2017 16:59

Which is why I believe that additional approaches are needed.

You don't think that some measures, like tagging and so on, will have some unwanted side effects?

I'm no expert, but I can think of some analogous examples from history where marking out Them and Us have been a bit disastrous. I do agree we need to be keeping tabs on suspects, but I'm wary of thought crime accusations and its implications.

Again, I'm no lawyer but from the Wiki page on the UK's terrorism laws, I can see we already have powers to detain without charge for up to 28 days, tracking measures similar to those for sex offenders, and freezing of assets.

You can also see here where some of the government's acts have led to 10 and 4 year old kids being reported and investigated.

It's a bit of a fine line to tread. We're going to have to balance personal liberties with security. I'm in favour of the balance tipping towards personal liberty, since as you say, we can't predict or prevent all of these atrocities happening and I'd rather not live in a state like Turkey or China in the meantime.

LurkingHusband · 07/06/2017 17:00

I am willing to take that risk, we aren't talking about the death penalty here. If the police make a mistake and lock up one innocent person verses saving the lives of dozens, maybe hundreds of our children, then its worth the price.

Especially when that innocent person won't even be entitled to compensation anymore.

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 17:03

lurking can you answer my question on your claim that anyone of us could be a criminal or a terrorist just on the CPS or a neighbours say so, do you not know evidence is required?

PlinkyTheFairyWitch · 07/06/2017 17:05

Why are people suggesting removing their human rights is a bad thing?

Because human rights are either universal or meaningless.

LurkingHusband · 07/06/2017 17:12

lurking can you answer my question on your claim that anyone of us could be a criminal or a terrorist just on the CPS or a neighbours say so, do you not know evidence is required?

You are asserting evidence is required. I was responding to a poster who didn't want evidence - just people locked up in case they are terrorists.

My claim that anyone here could be a criminal or terrorist is based on the very simple fact that both are only what the law says they are. Remember two peace protesters were charged as terrorists for reading out names at the Cenotaph a few years ago.

Now we on this thread all know exactly what a terrorist is, but it may not be what the law says ...

twelly · 07/06/2017 17:14

Our Human rights are under threat from terrorists, they don't want us to have freedom, they don't want us to have the freedom to live their life in a western way. We live in a democracy which is being threatened by terrorism, therefore we need to take decisive action in order to preserve this. this does not mean that we become a police state but it does mean that we adopt and change government powers to deal with the current threats

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 17:17

'You are asserting evidence is required. I was responding to a poster who didn't want evidence - just people locked up in case they are terrorists'

No you said 'Most people posting here would be astounded to discover that they could be classed a criminal or terrorist, ' which is clearly bollocks without evidence so I'm wondering why you would think it?

Pentapus · 07/06/2017 17:28

It's a bit of a fine line to tread. We're going to have to balance personal liberties with security.

I agree. There's a continuum and we need to find the right place on it. There are some personal liberties that, while I would theoretically regret the attenuation of them, the changes would most likely never be noticed or felt by the vast majority, and thus I would trade them if I believed it would save lives.

LurkingHusband · 07/06/2017 17:32

No you said 'Most people posting here would be astounded to discover that they could be classed a criminal or terrorist, ' which is clearly bollocks without evidence so I'm wondering why you would think it?

You are conflating two answers I gave.

I asserted that anyone of us here could be deemed a criminal or terrorist, since those two things are just what the law says they are (which is a counter to the "criminals don't deserve human rights" meme). In such instances, there would be evidence - whatever the law required to make you guilty in the first place, but there would be evidence.

Another poster then said they were quite happy to have people locked up before they commit a crime. In that instance, I was taking the liberty of deducing that people who haven't committed a crime will have no evidence against them (evidence of what , one asks ?) and pointing out that a regime like that is open to all sorts of abuses. Especially when people twig that the simplest way to deal with people we don't like is to "report" them as "possible terrorists".

As far as I am aware, none of us on this thread has committed a crime. But any of us could. Using the logic that we should lock people up before they commit a crime, means we would all be at risk of being in jail.

For nothing.

One thing this thread does demonstrate - in a bitter sweet way - is how well our Human Rights serve us that we can take them for granted or think they are a "nice to have". There are many places around the world where that isn't the case, and invariably they are not very nice places at all. China and North Korea spring to mind.

Any US schoolkid would be able to quite the various bon mots of the Founding Fathers. In this case the comment that those that sacrifice liberty for security will enjoy neither seems apposite. (I think it was either Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson).