To not want my human rights torn up?

[futuristic1]

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

She can make these changes within the current framework.

Oh good, how?

And why didn't Labour do it in compliance with HRA in the first place?

I thought I posted this earlier. Labour did bring in control orders. May scrapped them.

Repeating this:
Andrew‏*@AndrewStoneman*
Can May explain which Human Rights laws prevented her acting on intelligence about terrorists involved in W/M, Mncr & L/B attacks?

As I understand it several different newspapers have published stories linking MI5 and the Manchester Bomber and one of the London Bridge attackers. The suggestion is they encouraged them to go to Syria / Libya to help fight against forces there.

Now the fact that information about these individuals has not been passed on between intelligence services and police or from Italy ( the Italians are saying that they have the documentation to prove they informed the British authorities that they were concerned about an individual and he was STILL allowed to enter the country) smacks of something else entirely that questions should be raised about.

Instead it's our human rights on the chopping board.

Don't lose sight of the story and reason at the heart of this and precisely why May has decided to act now.

It's important.

May scrapped the control orders as she couldn't us then but shortly before they were scrapped the home office has started to get on top of the problem and was beginning to use them effectively. It was more a matter if how they were set up and presented before the courts rather than the legislation itself being flawed.

I'll try and find the references for this if I can but I'm not entirely sure where it was.

"I thought I posted this earlier. Labour did bring in control orders. May scrapped them"

In which case you posted an incomplete version. Here's an attempt at a fuller one:

" Labour did bring in control orders. May scrapped them because they had been repeatedly thrown out of the courts because they infringed the human rights (as defined by HRA) of those subject to them"

Which is better - a reconsideration of the law so there is proper debate on how liberties might be circumscribed for a particular set of people, or a government who just ignores HRA and brings in measures that are not legal?

Also the idea of reinstating control orders doesn't address how you have the man power to police them...

"How do you KNOW that you would not end up in one?" (Internment camps)

Because its the same principle that Id vote for capital punishment to be returned for child and police murderers. Id be at exactly the same risk, which Im more than happy to take to secure my childrens society.
Im sure Im the minority in this day and age re cap punishment, but if you asked me where a couple of billion could come from to help our NHS, my first port of call would be the amount we spend not only comfortably housing and feeding this section of scum in our society (oaps dont get 3 meals a day), but we pay for them to get degrees etc. Were are utterly utterly mad. The amount we spend, as a nation, on the dregs of society, to then let them repeat offend, is utterly ridiculous.

And I'll say again, the way May was trying to implement the control orders was part of the problem. Not the control orders themselves. Once the Home office got to grips with this, they started to get them through the courts.

It smacks of taking short cuts to stop that safe guarding and the state acting in a way that jeapardised innocent people. Not there being a problem with control orders.

I'd like to think that me (and those friends I have who are Muslim) wouldn't "end up in" an internment camp because we don't preach hate, support IS, travel to Syria to fight and want an IS flag waving atop Buckingham Palace. Just a thought.

Carolinesbeanies

Not a compassionate human being then. I assume you do not go to church (of any faith or denomination).

Thankfully you are in the minority and I hope you and those of your opinions continue to be so.

www.ft.com/content/c832ab84-9ed9-31a0-a7de-7941c3f40a55
Theresa May and the politics of denouncing human rights law

Putting aside the moral issue, I thought it was common knowledge that executing someone is in fact far more expensive than keeping them in prison. So it wouldn't even make economic sense.

The Tories have always wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act as it is an inconvenience to their policies. We can't just rely on our rights under the UN convention as they have no way to make governments comply. The UN has already condemned their policies. See this article www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/austerity-government-policy-conservatives-poor-food-banks-inequality-un-a7110066.html%3Famp

They also passed legislation that is a breach of the right to a fair trial with their secret courts that so many people seem to be unaware of. anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/secret-courts-very-illiberal-democrats.html?m=1

We are entering slippery slope territory. Any government that wants to erode its cizens' rights is on very dodgy ground. There's more than one way to crack a nut and a sledge hammer is not necessarily the best one.

It is also pretty well known execution doesn't work as a deterrent

Putting aside the moral issue, I thought it was common knowledge that executing someone is in fact far more expensive than keeping them in prison

Only if you waste time with appeals, and nonsense like ensuring guilt.

Besides, you just bill the criminals family for the cost. Hell, if we are importing the hemp rope, we might even be able to make a profit. We'll need to have something to sell to the world, post-Brexit.

The UK. Executioner to the world. - Special offer. Off one. Off one free.

Lord Neuberger (He of Supreme Court Fame) in 2011

"It is a sign of a healthy democracy that there are different views within society and that the outcome of individual cases, and the balance struck between individual rights, can be vigorously debated. But such debates must be based on fact not misconception, deliberate or otherwise. Persuasion should be based on truth rather than propaganda."

Why do you think the courts ruled repeatedly against May? Why does a judge feel the need to make such comments if we are really a healthy democracy?

Sounds from this thread we just need to give up, then.

What's amusing is that the FIVE QUESTIONS referred to a page or so back aren't even answered effectively by the Leader of the Opposition, let alone those who would police our rights.

What should we do about him?

"Not a compassionate human being then."

Im a totally compassionate human being Nellie. Just to victims, not offenders, and I wont apologise for that. Victims have long since been forgotten and have zero human rights.

Mitzy, your confusing a very narrow survey of costs to prosecute death penalty cases in the US, to prosecuting life sentence cases. It doesnt include the cost of 30, 50, 70 years of then socially supporting a prisoner. Yes prosecuting death penalty cases is higher, as it should be.

Carolinesbeanies

You are NOT a compassionate person but keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better (won't make you a better person though )

Every Muslim friend I have spoken to since the Manchester and London attacks has supported internment for these guys. They feel as appalled as everyone else about innocent people being murdered and recognise that these guys bring nothing but shame to the Islamic community and cause a rise in racism every time there is a terrorist attack.

Some of the persons of interest may well be people who have looked at something a bit dodgy on the internet or said something stupid on twitter but a lot of them have travelled to Syria or Libya to fight and train. Look at Khuram Butt he was even on TV saying I support ISIS and attacked someone who worked for Quilliam and he was still aloud to walk the streets.

Red thanks for those links and especially for posting a paragraph from the FT - it requires me to subscribe to read such links in full.

The Human Rights Act is presently a giant system of loopholes which allow terrorists to not only commit acts of barbarity, but also to evade justice.

-Non EU National commits an act of terror-

"Oh but I can't be extradited to my birth nation..I'm gay and it's against my Human Rights"

"I know I murdered several people, but I've just had a baby with a British woman and you can't send me away from my child- it's my Human Right to see them grow"

In the UK, who does the Human Rights Act actually benefit? Genuine question.
Since it only ever seems to be used as the literal Get Out Of Jail card for aspiring terrorists.

Personally I think that if you commit a serious violent or sexual crime, are involved in organised crime or terrorism then you should be deported if possible if you are a foreign national. If your then imprisoned and tortured in the country your returned to then your own fault for choosing to bite the hand that feeds.

UK nationals of course should not and indeed cant be deported however there are a large number of people linked to Islamic terrorism who are basically ticking time bombs. They have reached the point where they will be virtually impossible to re-intergrate back into normal society, they cant be reasoned with or negotiated with and basically need to be locked up indefinitely.

Normal post from lessworriedaboutthecat.

Just waiting for the fervour and hysteria to be whipped up again.