To think Teresa may is right about new terrorism laws

[LovelyBath77]

Something needs to change. I think the safety of people needs to be a priority.

There was hardly any terrorism in the UK before TM. And suddenly, just before the election, when the Tories are going down in the polls, there's a dramatic increase. Could it all be a coincidence?

Create a problem, fix the problem (kind of), take away everyone's basic human rights in the process.

No. I disagree with scrapping human rights because some people are terrorists and think may is being disgusting using peoples fears over the recent attacks to further a long standing agenda of hers. Same with the internet regulations...nowt to do with terrorism as shes been trying to push that for years and years. Basically Keir Starmer said everything I feel on the subject today here

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/keir-starmer-uk-human-rights-law-does-not-prevent-capture-of-terrorists

Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions who oversaw dozens of terror cases, said Theresa May was misguided to focus on human rights law rather than policing cuts.

“There is no incompatibility between protecting human rights and taking effective action against terrorists,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“If we start throwing away our adherence to human rights in response to what has happened in the last three months, we are throwing away the values at the heart of the democracy, everything that we say we believe in.”

Starmer said he had never found human rights law a barrier to successful prosecutions of terrorists or those preparing acts of terrorism. “I know because I did it for five years,” he said. “We did not run into the Human Rights Act as a problem preventing successful prosecutions. We put a lot of people away for a very long time.”

--------

This 'deporting terrorists' thing I don't really get the support for either. Many were born here, others have lived here for a long time. Most will become radicalized whilst living here. Look at it this way...

If a British boy moves to the America when he's a normal 10 year old and falls in with a violent gang, then kills several people when he is 30... do we think the America should say "This guy who was born in your country is a criminal, we have put him on a plane, you can either lock him up at your expense or let him loose on your own streets but we want nothing to do with it thanks."

I do however, think anyone who is jailed on terrorist offenses should be in solitary if they aren't already. To stop them radicalizing other people in prison.

Is this the suggestion of putting people already prepared to die for their cause in prison for longer?!
Yeah that's a top suggestion

I've never understood this line. Presumably prison sentences would be for people planning attacks and if they are in prison, they can't blow anyone up. Although I do agree that the problem of radicalisation in prisons needs addressing.

Al Yamamah (Arabic: اليمامة The Dove‎‎) is the name of a series of a record arms sales by the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia, which have been paid for by the delivery of up to 600,000 barrels (95,000 m3) of crude oil per day to the UK government.[1] The prime contractor has been BAE Systems and its predecessor British Aerospace. The first sales occurred in September 1985 and the most recent contract for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon multirole fighters was signed in August 2006.

Don't think TM was prime minister then?

I agree OP. Police resources can't do everything no matter what we give them. The laws need to change

So, do you feel it the terrorists rights are more important than the risk from leaving things the way they are?

and this:

The UK was already a major supplier of arms to Saudi Arabia prior to Al Yamamah. In 1964 The British Aircraft Corporation conducted demonstration flights of their Lightning in Riyadh and in 1965 Saudi Arabia signed a letter of intent for the supply of Lightning and Strikemaster aircraft as well as Thunderbird surface to air missiles. The main contract was signed in 1966 for 40 Lightnings and 25 Strikemasters (eventually raised to 40). In 1973 the Saudi government signed an agreement with the British government which specified BAC as the contractor for all parts of the defence system (AEI was previously contracted to supply the radar equipment and Airwork Services provided servicing and training). Overall spending by the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) was over £10 billion GBP (SAR 57 Billion).[5]

There was hardly any terrorism in the UK before TM. And suddenly, just before the election, when the Tories are going down in the polls, there's a dramatic increase. Could it all be a coincidence?

I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting Name but there is an epidemic of Islamist terrorism across Europe. I don't think TM can be blamed for that.

So, do you feel it the terrorists rights are more important than the risk from leaving things the way they are

What rights are you concerned about?

And who should lose those rights?

The laws need to change

Which law needs to change?
What law should be brought in?

Also, what would you say to those who reported the terrorists who did the recent attacks and say 'nothing was done' would you say well, that is Ok as there are no laws.

Theresa May has been selling arms to Saudi Arabia who fund Isis.

I would love to know whether people who say things like this genuinelly believe that previous governments, including Labour govs, didn't do arms deals with Saudi, or whether they are just using this as a handy stick to attack TM.

She was HOme Sec for yonks - shame she didn't decide to do anything then!
It's very difficult to change laws without unforeseen circumstances. Everyone has human rights, you can't single out some nasty oiks for special treatment.

CCTV will help catch these people:

metro.co.uk/2017/06/07/nursery-worker-slashed-by-three-women-shouting-allah-in-east-london-6692209/

1 day away from the GE are we. She's had 7 years to pull her finger out.
We're not as green as she's cabbage looking.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

If we remove HUMAN rights from terrorists, we remove them from everyone. Because if they are not HUMAN rights for all humans they don't exist.

If you think it's just Islamist Jihadists who will be targeted, learn to read [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police-children-activists] Any one deemed a threat by whomever is in power at the time will be targeted.

Umm, might be a bit late? (CCTV)

The police and security services need more resources, not more powers.

Bollocks www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police-children-activists

Yeah, Limiting human rights
, banning things and locking up people really works ....after all I bet no one has ever heard of nelson Mandela.

'There was hardly any terrorism in the UK before TM. '

2005?

Or Aung San Suu Kyi @midgebabe

@LovelyBath77 please tell me which human rights laws have got in the way of prosecuting terrorists?

Thanks

Imprisonment without trial didn't work in Northern Ireland. Why would it work now?

We know that the perpetrators were "known". Do we know why they weren't being watched or dealt with?

Was it because the laws weren't there to deal with them?
Or because there isn't the resources to follow and deal with all those who are reported?