Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To not want my human rights torn up?

576 replies

futuristic1 · 07/06/2017 07:19

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

OP posts:
LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 09:18

Yeah cos people in wheelchairs, with serious problems are sucha danger, right??

They stormed the HoC because every where they went their voices were silenced or ignored.

In a real democracy, the PM should be directly answerable to the people. Not hidden away.

BertrandRussell · 07/06/2017 09:18

Here's a thought. Can we possibly have a discussion without any of the "hand wringing lefty" stuff? No "you think they sky is falling" hyperbole? No accusations of being terrorist sympathizers? It would be a refreshing change and we might get somewhere...........

makeourfuture · 07/06/2017 09:18

The British human rights act that would follow would be drafted by pretty much the same lawyers and would contain most of the same stuff.

Maybe.....maybe not.

Dandandandandandandan · 07/06/2017 09:19

Lana - genuine not goady question - how many of those campaigns do you think would work? How many protests ever actually change anything in reality (other than costing money in policing)? I can't think of any modern examples.

The problem here is money and the fact that the population as a whole simply isn't contributing as much as it costs, not for security, not for education, not for health. Would the time be better spent on a second job and putting the proceeds towards a voluntary tax contribution or rousing people to boycott big companies like Cadbury until they pay their fucking share, or spending the time volunteering as a community officer to help the police?

RedToothBrush · 07/06/2017 09:19

I was wondering how long it would be before 'the hard left' or liberals would be blamed.

Let's bust a few myths:

Kate Allen‏@KateAllen
This is an interesting thread which should make news media stop and have a bit of a think about what they're doing.

twitter.com/mrjammyjamjar3/status/871829837262061568
This is a thread written by a Muslim about Anjem Choudary. One of the London Bridge attackers is being reported as a follower of his.

Kate Allen‏@KateAllen
As I said at the weekend, we need terrorism reporting guidelines akin to the existing suicide reporting guidelines:
www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide/advice-journalists-suicide-reporting-dos-and-donts

Very abbreviated version of the Samaritans guidelines:
1. Think about the impact of the coverage on your audience

  • Your story might have an effect on vulnerable individuals or people connected to the person who has died.
2. Exercise caution when referring to the methods and context of a suicide
  • Details of suicide methods have been shown to prompt vulnerable individuals to imitate suicidal behaviour.
3. Avoid over-simplification 4. Steer away from melodramatic depictions of suicide or its aftermath
  • Be wary of over-emphasising community expressions of grief.
  • Doing so may suggest that people are honouring the suicidal behaviour rather than mourning a death.
  • Reporting suicide as a tragic waste and an avoidable loss is more beneficial in preventing further deaths.
  • A sensitive piece that explores the emotional devastation of a suicide on family and friends may prompt people with suicidal thoughts to reconsider or to seek help.
5. Aim for sensitive, nonsensationalising coverage
  • Don’t label locations as ‘hot spots’ or refer to a possible rise in suicides in a particular place or among a specific group as an ‘epidemic’.
  • Be careful not to promote the idea that suicide achieves results.
  • When writing headlines think carefully about content and potential impact.
  • Check that inappropriate language has not been used, such as referring to a death as someone having ‘committed suicide’.
  • Try an alternative such as ‘died by suicide’.
6. Consider carefully the placement and illustration of reports
  • Some suicides attract intense media scrutiny. However, where possible, refrain from positioning a story too prominently, for example on a front page or as a lead bulletin, as this may unduly influence vulnerable people.
  • Try to avoid repeated use of images of a deceased person, for example in online galleries.
  • Avoid dramatic or emotional images and footage, such as a person standing on a ledge.
7. Educate and inform
  • Whenever possible, try to refer to the wider issues associated with suicide, such as risk factors like alcohol misuse, mental health problems and deprivation.
  • If possible, include references to suicide being preventable, and to sources of support such as Samaritans.

Anjem Choudary has been given a platform on FoxNews, Nicky Campbell's "The Big Questions", Paxman's NewsNight and Andrew Neil's "This Week". Amongst others. All of these have helped normalised him and presented him as being representative.

Yet who gets the blame for tolerating extremism too much? Its human rights activists and liberals.

Hello whats this:

In 2013 the British pressure group Hope not Hate presented a report which identified Choudary as "a serious player on the international Islamist scene", saying that although there was no evidence that he was directly responsible for instigating any terrorist plots, "he helped shape the mindset of many of those behind them" and "through his networks linked them up to terror groups and supporters across the world." Choudary dismissed the claims as "fanciful", that if they were true, UK security services would have arrested him.

That certainly does not fit with the narrative that is spewed out and continues to be repeated by politicians. And note on the thread above about the Muslim responses to Choudary and how he was on the 'outside'. He was thrown out of mosques and confronted by members of the community.

Time and time again we see it: the right wing are the best friends of these groups, because they sensationalise them. Yet those who have been critical are framed as being too tolerant and not speaking out.

Why? Because what sells newspapers and gets ratings.

I notice that Buzzfeed have been particularly careful in their reporting for Manchester and London Bridge. The same can not be said for the BBC who have had coverage which has been far more sensationalist than in the past, in an effort to compete with other news agencies.

We need to tackle the Katie Hopkins every bit as much as the Anjem Choundarys to stop extremism.

If we are to have an honest conversations about this, in this country, we need to make sure this is reflected. But yeah. The internet are promoting hate groups. We must crack down on the internet and Muslim communities must do more to report. We must attack and strip away human rights. Bollocks.

This is the Big Lie. A propaganda technique.

Somehow, I'm not sure May's government is going to really support that much needed honest conversation about why terrorism is rising.

Most of her party deny that foreign policy is to blame (ironically Boris Johnson said exactly the same thing after 7/7 but woo Corbyn said it. That's the horrendous left) Yet the majority of the British public do believe it's foreign policy. This is crucial to acknowledge especially when you consider the terrorists attacking us are part of that British public.

It's a big con.

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 09:20

But the point is, they were shut down and silenced.

And a group of people in wheelchairs is hardly a fucking threat.

That whole protest started because the PM wouldn't even engage with the protestors.

Look, we are getting bogged down in a side arguement now.

I want someone who's in favour of the scrapping of HRA to answer my points upthread.....please??

waitforitfdear · 07/06/2017 09:22

its always the left who support the rights of the bully and the evil while these savages run riot.

I remember the police stopping traffic to allow that hook handed cunt preach hate outside the Finsbury Park mosque and who allowed that? Blaire egged on by his human rights lawyer wife.

Who deported the cunt? Theresa may

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 09:23

'It IS ridiculous that we can allow hate preaching and (lookalike) IS black flags to be waved in our streets. That groups of people can shout openly about our infidel status and hiw we will be slaughtered in the streets if we do not accept Allah. That's not freedom of speech. That's hatred. And to say that a hate preacher cannot be returned to their country of origin as they may be in danger themselves and have their own Human Rights compromised, is utterly ludicrous. massacreing innocent people in our cities."

Yes the 'laws that are in place' aren't enough. So if some radical has his 'human right to free speech' removed isn't that a good thing? he may then go online and we'd lose the power to track, unless oh wait he's monitored online before he commits an atrocity!

WalkingOnLeg0 · 07/06/2017 09:24

How is protecting extremists rights protecting my children's rights?

We need to stop them before they kill dozens of people not wait until after and then give them 'a fair trial'. Whats fair about being killed by Islamic extremists?

BertrandRussell · 07/06/2017 09:24

"its always the left who support the rights of the bully and the evil while these savages run riot"

How about we have a conversation where the right don't say things like this?

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 09:25

'I remember the police stopping traffic to allow that hook handed cunt preach hate outside the Finsbury Park mosque and who allowed that? Blaire egged on by his human rights lawyer wife. Who deported the cunt? Theresa may'

This

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 09:26

waitforitdear

Read RedToothBrushes excellent post upthread.

In fact I'll clip the pertinant bit so you can see it clearly- then maybe you'll stop spewing about "lefties" and blame the proper people, right??

In 2013 the British pressure group Hope not Hate presented a report which identified Choudary as "a serious player on the international Islamist scene", saying that although there was no evidence that he was directly responsible for instigating any terrorist plots, "he helped shape the mindset of many of those behind them" and "through his networks linked them up to terror groups and supporters across the world." Choudary dismissed the claims as "fanciful", that if they were true, UK security services would have arrested him.

Hope not Hate are a "lefty" group btw.

BertrandRussell · 07/06/2017 09:26

"Yes the 'laws that are in place' aren't enough."

Well, yes they are, actually. There just aren't the resources to enforce them.

RedToothBrush · 07/06/2017 09:27

Here's another one about how it's not the left

David Allen Green‏*@davidallengreen*
1. Here is the tale of Theresa and Abu.
2. Once upon a time Theresa was Home Secretary.
One day she had to deal with a request from Jordan for Abu's deportation.
3. She was not the first Home Secretary to have to deal with this request. But there was a problem.
4. The was the prospect that the evidence to be used against Abu in Jordan had been obtained by torture.
5. And if so, it was not lawfully open to the UK under ECHR to deport anybody if there was prospect of torture-gained evidence being used.
6. So what did Theresa do?
She huffed and puffed at the courts, spending huge amounts of public money.
7. Click here
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/277.html and see how many QCs she instructed for one appeal.
One QC.
Two QCs.
Three QCs.
Yes, three QCs.
8. Those in the media who rail against "fat cat lawyers" didn't mind the government instructing three QCs at public expense, in this case.
9. But Theresa still lost that case. She lost every appeal, however much taxpayers' money she threw at the case.
10. And the reason she lost was, well, because torture is absolutely wrong, and no one should be deported to face torture-based evidence.
^11. Having lost in her attempt at shouting at the courts, Theresa tried a new tactic.
She shouted at Europe.^
12. It was seriously suggested that the UK "temporarily" leave the ECHR - see
www.theguardian.com/law/2013/apr/24/european-rights-convention-abu-qatada
13. This idea did not get far, because it was laughed at by a Lord Chancellor called Kenneth.
14. But Theresa had got the tabloids in a frenzy at this case - she had shouted at the courts and at Europe, but none of it had worked.
15. And so Theresa quietly did a sensible deal with Jordan where they agreed never to use torture-based evidence.
16. You would say this was a Good Thing, as it meant there would be no torture-based evidence used in Jordan again.
17. But Theresa did not want to talk about it.
Instead she made out she had deported him "despite" ECHR rather than in compliance with it.
18. So despite huffing and puffing and exciting the tabloids and threatening suspension and appealing, she did what the ECHR required anyway
19. Theresa ended up doing a sensible deal on Abu, contrary to the expectations and demands of the press, but then pretended she hadn't.
20. In turn, Abu in Jordan was cleared, as the supposed serious (torture-based) evidence against him was no longer admissible.
^21. And Theresa got another job where she shouted at courts and at Europe, getting press into a frenzy, and then she....
(to be continued).^

Attacking human rights is a trumpian style distraction. Whilst we talk about this, we don't talk about May's weakness with police cuts and time as Home Security.

Instead we are presented with a image of May as the fighter. As the victim of the left. Strong and stable Theresa.

Rather than the rather ineffective and inadequate politician she is.

Scratch the surface and it shatters. What we are left with is a mirror to the USA.

DarlingCat · 07/06/2017 09:27

Deported where? The majority of recent terrorist are British. Deport to the Isle of White? To Wales?

makeourfuture · 07/06/2017 09:28

its always the left who support the rights of the bully and the evil while these savages run riot

Again. They have cut resources to the bone.

Give the police what they need....

waitforitfdear · 07/06/2017 09:28

Bertrand

Because it's true and facts matter.

lana my own dd was wheelchair bound for a long time and still needs it for long days out and she wants to be treated exactly the same as anyone else so wheel chair users have no more right to storm the house of commens than anyone else.

I do agree though that no party has been strong enough on disability rights.

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 09:28

The real bullies are the ones trying to silence genuine debate here.
Lot's of people have made eloquent and ver y good points, and instead of addressing them, we just get shouted down.

I'd rather be a handwringing lefty, than someone who can't even engage in a basic and decent debate without resorting to name calling.

If anyone would care to address some of the reasonable points without resorting to screeching about lefties, that would really help a lot, cheers.

Husk · 07/06/2017 09:28

Seven years she's had the opportunity to do this and now its important.

Electioneering at its worst on the backs of slaughtered Men, Women and Children.

GerdaLovesLili · 07/06/2017 09:29

I was quite fond of Habeas Corpus, but never mind. www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/03/19/police-state-uk-the-rights-you-didnt-know-youd-lost/

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 09:30

'Well, yes they are, actually. There just aren't the resources to enforce them'

So why have we seen radicals spouting nonsense while the police have provided traffic control in the past? These police 'resources' were right there! but we had to tolerate it. Why? Can you really not see the difference between 'free speech and radicalism?

WalkingOnLeg0 · 07/06/2017 09:30

How about we have a conversation where the right don't say things like this?

How about NO. We have been nice to extremists for decades. We have lets them live on benefits, abuse our courts and spread their evil. And our children were killed!

How about we call it out for what it is now and take away their rights.

Dandandandandandandan · 07/06/2017 09:30

Bertrand - did you watch the C4 programme "jihadis next door"?

Policemen surrounding the men for having a demonstration in the park. And the men responding, it's our right, freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression etc. They all had it down pat. Whilst laughing at beheading videos and trying to recruit others to join them. There were plenty of police. Their hands were just tied by the law.

And look at the men in that programme - one went off to Syria where he is now believed to behead people for Isis and another was one of the evil cunts from sat night.

There has to be a happy medium that sees people's rights protected whilst not seeing those same rights abused by the likes of choudhury and hamza (whilst costing the tax payer a fortune in legal aid).

mimishimmi · 07/06/2017 09:30

Always the left who support these thugs and bullies?

Like the left who armed and funded Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, the dirty war in Argentina, the paramilitaries in South America and SE Asia, the numerous dictators throughout the ME?

Right.

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 09:31

Oh and it's not the left who have cut funding, and engage with the source of this shit, the Saudis, is it?

It's not the left who are cutting the very fabric of our security services, and then wondering why they are overstretched and not entirely watertight.

It's not the left who can't even be bothered to have a proper debate, and just keep shouting about sympathisers and lefty handwringers, is it??