To not want my human rights torn up?

[futuristic1]

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

Everyone needs to calm down, get off their soapboxes and think rationally about this.

We're not actually going to experience any ripping up, wholesale repeal of laws nor internment of the innocent.

We're likely to be hearing about extending the time people can be held for questioning, increasing border security, maybe identity cards, better control around specific visitors to Syria, Libya etc, promulgators of violence, etc.

I am really struggling to understand why this is in any way objectionable.

Those citing Nazi Germany would do well to read a PP's post which floated the novel idea that the new Nazis might just be the IS fellow travellers and not - gasp - us.

It's to stop the ridiculous rights for criminals who can't be deported because they have a budgie they need to look after.
That's how ridiculous it's become.

It's to stop the ridiculous rights for criminals who can't be deported because they have a budgie they need to look after.
That's how ridiculous it's become.

It really hasn't.

Everyone needs to calm down, get off their soapboxes and think rationally about this.

If that's what May wanted, she would have talked in terms of ensuring laws could be carried out effectively. But she didn't, she talked about human rights, knowing full well it would gain votes from people who aren't looking at the full ramifications of that.
Her statement was electioneering of the worst kind.
she's using the momentum from the recent terrorist incidents to
A) get herself some panic votes
and
B) push a human rights agenda that she's had for quite some time.

Hmmmm. But when it happens, it happens bigly.

8 years and £25,000,000 it cost the British taxpayer before we could get rid of that murderous hate preaching hook handed twat who never contributed anything to society.

Even his sodding criminal daughter in law cost us a fortune to try and get rid of her!

She didn't say anything about ripping up or tearing up, though, that was empty media hype - 19 pages of groundless panic follow.

And, I know it's MN, but extravagant human rights for correctly identified terrorists aren't really up there with most people's priorities.

Humans never learn from history, we will destroy the Human Rights Bill to get rid of terrorists but it will end up being used on normal citizens and members of the press and the terrorists will just continue being twats.

Not a believer in the principle of law then: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Nope that is not what I said, let me paraphrase:

"It is better one innocent person has restrictions than ten Islamic terrorists blow up 220 innocent people"

Lets get real in the 21st century of suicide bombers.

It's to stop the ridiculous rights for criminals who can't be deported because they have a budgie they need to look after.
That's how ridiculous it's become.

It really isn't like that. The truth about Theresa May and the criminal's cat really isn't real. She made it up/put a spin on it to make it sound like he was allowed to stay because of his cat. It was far more complicated than that.

You shouldn't agreeably tear up your human rights, people. Theresa May has been trying to get of them for years - she hates the HR legislation stopping her from doing whatever the fuck she wants.

If you take away the human rights laws for terrorists, you also kiss goodbye to them for yourself. And that's not good, or wise.

There is sufficient legislation to deal with terrorist activity already- Tony Blair brought shitloads in after 7/7 - we need the police/intelligence resources to apply it. (And that's what TM wants to cut).

It's to stop the ridiculous rights for criminals who can't be deported because they have a budgie they need to look after. That's how ridiculous it's become.

No, dear, that is not how it is.

But when it happens, it happens bigly.

That made me crack up, so thanks.

Processes could be improved, no argument from me here.
But we do not need new laws or restricted freedoms for that.

No, she didn't say "rip them up" she said:
*“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”

Which amounts to the same thing.

And once more: it is human rights she's wanting to change. Not terrorist rights. Human. All humans. Terrorists and non terrorists.

'if you take away the human rights laws for terrorists, you also kiss goodbye to them for yourself. And that's not good, or wise.'
How on earth did we manage before 1998?

I'll repeat the question asked up thread: if you are in favour of curtailing human rights, which of your own human rights would you be happy to give up, and why?

Freedom of speech? The right to free association? The right to liberty? The right not to be tortured? The right not to be detained indefinitely without trial? The right not to be deported to a country with the death penalty?

That last one's a particularly interesting one, because it's easy to envisage a situation where it might affect you, even if you believe the line that "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear." Suppose your son or daughter is stupid enough to act as a drug mule one day. Would you want them extradited to the country of origin for the drugs if that country had the death sentence, and that was likely to be the sentence they'd receive?

Or then there's the well documented issue of mission creep - a badly drafted piece of anti-terrorist legislation gets used against peaceful protestors. It's thought that there have been about 200 instances of anti-terrorism legislation being used against environmental protestors in the US, for example.

Because there is no way of framing a law such that it removes human rights from bad people without also removing human rights from all people. It cannot be done. It is a legal nonsense.

So, which ones are you - you personally, not some radical Muslim preacher with a hook - are you prepared not to have?

'No, she didn't say "rip them up" she said: 'And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”

'Which amounts to the same thing. '

No, it really doesn't. Amending does not equal 'ripping up'.

The Tories austerity measures and treatment of the disabled may contravene the Human rights Act. Its got nothing to do with terrorism.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/austerity-government-policy-conservatives-poor-food-banks-inequality-un-a7110066.html

"Change" covers a multitude of sins all the way from "tweak slightly" to change completely- so it allows more wriggle room for slippery types, I'll give you that.

user1471545174 - the types of things you're referring to (longer detention, increased security etc) leads to increased levels of radicalisation. We have seen it happen before.

Thatcher was the best recruitment agent the IRA ever had. May seems to be heading in the same direction for IS.

Arent they trying to do something about protests in America?

At least 10 new bills which aim to curb the right to protest have been filed by state legislatures in recent months. In North Dakota, where a protest camp has been established for months on the proposed site of the North Dakota Access pipeline, legislators recently introduced a bill which would allow motorists to run over and kill a protester, so long as the driver did not “intend” to kill them.

Is this the sort of thing that people are worried about, thin edge of the wedge type scenarios

Humans never learn from history, we will destroy the Human Rights Bill to get rid of terrorists but it will end up being used on normal citizens and members of the press and the terrorists will just continue being twats.

This is absolutely true, and should never be ignored.

Unless you are one of the Isis recruits, your rights are perfectly fine.
If you are one of them though,you don't really deserve human rights.

^Unless you are one of the Isis recruits, your rights are perfectly fine.
If you are one of them though,you don't really deserve human rights^

Of course once we accept the principal that aren't human, it's mere paperwork to add to the list.

Paedophiles (obviously)
Travellers
Gipsies
Homosexuals
Communists
(enumerate distasteful racial slurs, possibly alphabetically)

Probably a better idea not to have a list to start with ?

Alternatively we could demonstrate our commitment to our own values and have a basic humanity to all ???

Unless you are one of the Isis recruits, your rights are perfectly fine.

That's the whole point - laws brought in/human rights removed for "ISIS recruits" - end up being applicable to everyone.

Anti-terror laws brought in the wake of 7/7 are already used against ordinary citizens. Right now. For example, you can no longer demonstrate in Parliament Square - which was previously your democratic right in this country.

You may think: "that's ok, I don't want to demonstrate in Parliament Square" - but that would be incredibly short-sighted of you. The right to peaceful demonstration is a cornerstone of democracy.

Yes, and what LurkingHusband said. How about 'immigrants' and 'benefit claimants' added to that list?

Givemeallthechocolate - are you really so ignorant of recent history that you believe that?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I wonder how many posters nodding along to that voted to remain in the EU - after Benns speech

Ask the powerful five questions:

WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?
WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?
IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?
TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?

Only Democracy gives us that right. That is why no one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it – including you and me, here and now.

^^ Its just I bet many posters did vote to remain in the EU and yet talk about loosing freedoms.....

Firstly - as I said much earlier in the thread Germany/France and other countries have tweaked standard HR issues in the face of terrorism they face.....this is not about sending HR down the river in totality. Thats a ridiculous dramatic stance to take by people who perhaps understand little of our country and its history.

We are one of the worlds leaders in HR.

As for the quote above I find these things really distasteful when the people who should be able to answer it are actually not here anymore, because their liberty to take a drink on a Saturday night was taken from them.