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.

I am horrified by what TM said. Hoping I'm wrong, holding breath to see what the details are. She wants to be in the Strong-Man League with Putin, Assad, Duterte, Erdogan & Trump, I guess.

Now we know why she hasn't stood up to Trump - she agrees with him.

TM has admitted in the past that she has issues with the European Convention on Human Rights. When she was Home Secretary. She said this back in April 2016, as Home Secretary. She has said in various speeches that she had 'issues' with it. She is using the latest terrorist attacks to justify views that she has had for years. She stated that the IK should withdraw from the European convention on human rights regardless of the referendum results. She Said this in April and December 2016.

I agree withsome of her ideas but she's being talking about doing away with human rights for a while and it seems like she's using the attacks to do this.
Most basically those human rights are simple things that we most definitely need.
Also, locking up anyone suspected to be a terrorist without proper trial didn't work in NI did it??

She's complained about the HRA frustrating her before and she's seen the opportunity to play the card now.
It's currently possible to arrest and charge people for planning terrorism. Let's get local police gathering the intelligence that communities are offering up.

Keir Starmer was on TV this morning, talking tough about security. He was all chuffed saying Labour had supported the Investigatory Powers Bill last year. And was boasting about how he had led the party in a three-line whip.

Despite being obliged to back a 3 line whip JEREMY CORBYN did NOT vote for it. >double take< He was the leader of the Labour party at the time and he evaded a three line whip.

If the leader of the Labour party can not support their own 3 line whip and support anti terror laws, then he is not fit to be in the office, he is not fit to protect this country.

I feel that a change is necessary because currently arresting someone and detaining someone who hasnt yet committed a crime is not possible. We all saw the documentary showing the jihadist who killed innocent people on Saturday, publicly praying with the black flag of ISIS . People are currently free to get radicalised and worship extreme beliefs in plain sight and when police ask them to stop, they hide behind 'human rights laws'.
We often hear that the attackers were known to the police and wondering why police hadn't done something to stop them. Well that's why. Because current law is not letting police fight terrorism.

MrsTerryPrachett is right. Next Pm?

Is it me, or is there another insidious form of radicalisation around? I know some people that were reasonably sensible 5 years ago and now they are all 'hang 'em high' for all sorts of things. Polarisation and extreme views of any kind leads to trouble.
(and anything Katie Hopkins agrees with would make me re examine my view)

I feel that a change is necessary because currently arresting someone and detaining someone who hasnt yet committed a crime is not possible

And you think detaining someone without charge is ok?

You can currently arrest people for conspiring terrorism! We just need the resources. You can make any damn law you like but if you haven't got enough police then arrests won't get made.

She is electioneering, in the most cynical and unethical way.

"Hey, you there, people who are scared - vote for meeeeeee - I'll take the human rights of everyone in the country of the terrorists away and send them all away despite the fact they were mainly British citizens. No, don't worry, there's no possible downside to the removal of human rights."

It's despicable behaviour.

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

We need to review our foreign policy and consider why it has become easier to recruit these people. We need more funding for police and other services. I don't trust TM to provide either, she hasn't thus far.

You want to arrest and detain people on the basis they might commit a crime? On whose say so? Are you thinking like in minority report ..profiling by an elite, or in more like America in the 1960's.. when your neighbour points a finger because you parked outside their house?

We tried internment , locking people up without trial, in Northern Island.

Interned prisoners were confirmed in and studying their beliefs with others on a full time basis. At the taxpayers expense.

Their wives, sons, nephews ,friends, were effectively radicalised by the injustice their chaps were undergoing.

It didn't solve anything. It was a dark stain on UKs record as a just and free society.

It didn't work, and it was the best recruitment tool the extremists ever had.

You do realise that it will apply to all of us. So your happy to be held indefinitely without trial?

Good old Keir.

"currently arresting someone and detaining someone who hasnt yet committed a crime is not possible"

This is how the legal system works in pretty much any free country.

We already have laws against incitement to hatred, incitement to violence, planning terrorism.

Do you really want a law specifically against 'praying publically' and 'waving a flag'? And to be honest, at the police's discretion, that can be dealt with under breach of the peace afaik.

idiots dont deserve freedom but I dont see why people like the op should ruin it for everyone. go live in a dictatorship if thats what you want. see how great it is. dont try and impose your stupidity on me.

I really don't feel comfortable with the idea of locking people up without a trial or requiring evidence to be a good thing. Assuming those powers come in and anyone who is seen to support terrorism under whatever definition the state want to use without recourse to the law seems an attack against the principles in the Magna Carta.

I think the West has been too soft with people who are effectively acting as a 5th column. I think half the problem is that these idiots are emboldened by the fact that their nonsense is not swiftly nipped in the bud. As can be seen by the many missed opportunities to catch the latest round of assholes.

It is unacceptable to me that they are able to enjoy the comforts and security that the West offers and yet, choose to rail against it and plot against it. But rampant hypocrisy is not a crime, I suppose.

what do you reckon?

I suppose if you lock everyone up.....
Then you don't need this.....
www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/06/budget-home-office-terrorist-unit-drop-ps32m

if you lock everyone up they can't go out and kill themselves.

It's the ones behind the numpties that go out to commit atrocities and suicide that are the problem - odd that it's brave and 'fighting for the cause' for some to commit jihad and kill themselves but not others sitting on their pcs in the background organising it - I think the money needs to go into IT and MI5/6 and some well placed drone bombs.

Nice linkPainting