To not want my human rights torn up?

[futuristic1]

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

Why take away human protection for all based on a few radicals? Could a fellow MN'er explain why my simple view of this is wrong, because it must be, surely?

It's generally to legitimise control of dissidents. 1) Reduce rights 2) Definition creep of "terrorism" to include anyone who disagrees with ruling government 3) Labelling political protesters as terrorist sympathizers because they disagree with governments "enhanced security measures" etc.....

Rights should not be destroyed for political reasons.

Yes, they begin as general police.

But then police are assigned to specific duties, and the number assigned to counter-terrorism has increased.

And I posted about the increase to CT resources in response to a specific post about this the police deal with CT issues. Even the part of the police force which has seen reinforcement not cut is not necessarily keeping up with the threat.

Does London count as a major conurbation?

OP YANBU

Teresa May is "reckless and misinformed" according to Amnesty International

www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/theresa-mays-comments-human-rights-are-reckless-and-misinformed-says-amnesty

I'll personally listen to them rather than the mumsnet Tory apologists.

YANBU.

This is what she actually said:

"I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries.
"And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
"And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it."

It's about deportation procedures, and changing TPIMS (something elements of Labour have been calling for, saying she was in the wrong to water down control orders, and overlooking that their version was repeatedly thrown out by the courts. If she changes the law so that Labour-style control orders are possible, that should get support from both sides of the house.

Surely our "way of life" is enshrined in the HRA? If we tear it up, we have already let the terrorists win.

This.

Plus the small matter of the Good Friday Agreement, which put an end to decades of terrorism, and which is underpinned by the Human Rights Act.

Is there a more detailed commentary form Amnesty? That link takes me only to the soundbite, and I'd like to know what they think May is proposing in rather more detail.

I doubt May knows herself, in any more detail.

She's toast, anyway.

If it's deportations and control orders, I should imagine she knows a great deal.

I can't find that she has said anything other than changes in those to points.

What's the source of anything else beyond those?

Theyve wanted to tear up our human rights for ages. It wont work. All these attackers were already reported by their own communities. This wasnt followed up because of cuts to our security forces and police forces. Tory austerity is responsible for these attacks as much as ISIS.

Under the Tories all this has been cut to the bone, and will continue to be so. Lets be honest, if Labour hadn't bnkrupted the country we wouldn't be having to balance the books now - so in effect, it's Labour that have cut 20000 police jobs! I sincerely hope they don't win tomorrow.

If she changes the law so that Labour-style control orders are possible, that should get support from both sides of the house.

They need to stop right now and engage their brains. They have spent a decade putting us in this dangerous situation. They should not do something idiotic and perhaps more dangerous because polls are tightening.

Why not give the police proper resources?

It is the thin end of the wedge and is horrifying.

YANBU.

They are totally at it again^^ and have been since at least 2001. Those who say "this isn't Nazi Germany, we defeated them" are either ignoring or ignorant of the fact that many within the US and UK bankrolled and armed those vicious thugs then spirited them away to many Western countries after the war ... they will create, and have always done, situations to justify taking away our rights.

@meditrina I think you're confusing MI5 and the specialist counter-terrorism police - both of which have had their numbers increased - with general police

My understanding is that counter-terrorism police units are part of the general police force. Police forces got increased funding for counter terrorism but still had budgets cuts which reduced their ability to fully staff counter-terrorism units. This includes having more police in the community. And this ultimately means that they cannot do their job properly.

The threat level and nature of the threat has changed significantly. The response is not to rip up human rights but to actually do something tangible and practical. To me that's about collecting intelligence and having a greater police presence to reduce the threat.

What's the good of having no human rights if we don't have enough police to enforce, prevent and protect?

I don't want anything torn up , it always makes a dreadful mess !

'This is what she actually said:"I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries."And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court."And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it."

This!!! . Isn't that what we want?? as a pp said security resources have increased, police numbers have decreased yes but it's stopping them before they are on the streets about to commit an atrocity that is the issue surely, or kicking them out if they are radicalised.

Lets be honest, if Labour hadn't bnkrupted the country we wouldn't be having to balance the books now

Have a look and do some research. Debt levels shot up in 2008. And do you know why......

Worldwide
Economic
Crisis

Since the recent terrorist criminals have been British citizens, in the main, where will the be deported to exactly?
The suggestion is restricting civil liberties without trial for individuals.
Worrying times.

YANBU. Restricting the rights of the people will never solve the problem of terrorism. Never. It's a frightening approach that has the potential to negatively affect the vast majority of the population while doing precisely nothing to get at the heart of the issue of terrorism.

Anyone who would like an example of a country that has moved rapidly into authoritarianism need look no further than Russia. Over the past decade and a half, civil rights have been restricted, censorship increased, opposition political parties squeezed out, a new cult of personality constructed. Obviously, there are massive differences between Russia and the UK. Russia has no tradition of democracy, and the early post-Soviet years were chaotic and terrifying for many people. But the ease with which Putin has led Russia down this dangerous path should be an object lesson to any observer. And it all started with an "anti-terrorism" platform.

I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries

Most of the recent terrorism offences have been carried out by U.K. citizens.....

Lets all calm down and wait to see what changes are going to made, if any before getting our outrage on?