No, it's just that he hadn't broken any laws I presume. It's fuck all to do with human rights.So that is what prevented us locking up the london terrorist when he was going around the public park with an isis flag on national tv? Is it that there weren't enough police or was he protected by human rights law which give him freedom of expression and thought
Theresa May removed them, remember thatInteresting reading about when the control orders for terror suspects were scrapped in 2011.
Before they were scrapped, terror suspects who couldn't be prosecuted or deported could be monitored by electronic tag, curfew imposed, restricted from going to locations where other known terror suspects and from travelling abroad as well as not being allowed to use a mobile phone or internet. If they breached these they got a 5 year jail sentence. It was replaced by another system where basically they have freedom to do whatever they want but are supposed to be under greater surveillance, which clearly is not working.
Time to bring them back at the very minimum?
No surprise that they were removed because people were worried it infringed their human rights
I don't give a shit about Theresa May, I'm not a supporter of her. If she did that then she's an idiot.Theresa May removed them, remember that
Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk
And if we had amended the law so what he did was illegal then people would have been in uproar about human rights over it.No, it's just that he hadn't broken any laws I presume. It's fuck all to do with human rights.
Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk
This is the bit people seem to miss / ignore with these people who are on watch lists. As you say its nothing to with human rights, make stricter laws on hate speech, promoting the likes of ISIS etc if you want to start locking people up, or if they aren't British deporting them.No, it's just that he hadn't broken any laws I presume. It's fuck all to do with human rights.
But you can't have Nazi flags or make Nazi salutes in Germany and Austria and they have their human rights. You just need to make support for isis and possession of isis flags a criminal offence. Has nothing to do with human rights.And if we had amended the law so what he did was illegal then people would have been in uproar about human rights over it.
Yet it seems parties and viewpoints that are considered as neo nazism is allowed as long as they dont make direct links/reference to the Nazi regime. Why?But you can't have Nazi flags or make Nazi salutes in Germany and Austria and they have their human rights. You just need to make support for isis and possession of isis flags a criminal offence. Has nothing to do with human rights.
Well I've just finished reading a book about Neo-Nazism and especially the National Socialist Underground in Germany and essentially the police have been trying to shut them down for ages while the security services have allowed them to rumble on as they have a network of informers inside. Again nothing to do with human rights.Yet it seems parties and viewpoints that are considered as neo nazism is allowed as long as they dont make direct links/reference to the Nazi regime. Why?
You've not answered my question earlier about which article of the human rights act prevents arrest and trial of terror suspects?
We could always scrap trident and do away with the armed forces?? Yeah, that'd work!............ wouldn't it??Where does the money come from?
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Stick a copper on every corner of every street and it would not stop these losers attacking innocent people. Can you not see a link...
Oh and if people like whatsapp don't play ball with data then start charging them with assisting offenders.
That's lefties for ya! I suppose it was spearheaded by Lily Allen!Interesting reading about when the control orders for terror suspects were scrapped in 2011.
Before they were scrapped, terror suspects who couldn't be prosecuted or deported could be monitored by electronic tag, curfew imposed, restricted from going to locations where other known terror suspects and from travelling abroad as well as not being allowed to use a mobile phone or internet. If they breached these they got a 5 year jail sentence. It was replaced by another system where basically they have freedom to do whatever they want but are supposed to be under greater surveillance, which clearly is not working.
Time to bring them back at the very minimum?
No surprise that they were removed because people were worried it infringed their human rights
That's lefties for ya! I suppose it was spearheaded by Lily Allen!
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
Yeah that lefty bitch Theresa May got rid of them. I bet you hate getting labeled racist but are happy to brand people lefty.That's lefties for ya! I suppose it was spearheaded by Lily Allen!
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
I'd rather be called a racist than be a terrorist sympathiser like you!Yeah that lefty bitch Theresa May got rid of them. I bet you hate getting labeled racist but are happy to brand people lefty.
Ha! So we're name calling now? You're the hight of intelligent debate.I'd rather be called a racist than be a terrorist sympathiser like you!
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
Height!Ha! So we're name calling now? You're the hight of intelligent debate.
Thats it, pick up on the small typing error rather than address the overlying point.Height!
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
What overlying point?Thats it, pick up on the small typing error rather than address the overlying point.
You realise May was Home Secretary in 2011, right?
So why don't we pass new laws tomorrow which make it easier to arrest and prosecute terrorists? Make it so police have more arrest powers and so less evidence is required in court cases of this nature, if you are suspected as a terror threat the burden of proof should be to prove you are innocent and not a threat. Not the other way around.You've not answered my question earlier about which article of the human rights act prevents arrest and trial of terror suspects?
If human rights are not a problem then that's great, it means less hoops to jump through.
First law I would pass is to make it illegal for people to hold views related to Islamic extremism and punishable with a minimum of a 5 year sentence even if no direct links to Isis can be made
Second law, similar to first one, they are known to hold Islamic extremism views but there is a direct link to Isis can be shown. So for example they are found in possession of an Isis flag or other Isis related material, or they are found to be colluding with people who are known to be a member of isis. I would make this punishable with a minimum 15 year sentence.
Institute of fiscal studies...go argue with them!Corbynomics
Fruitless ambition I am afraid. More likely to be hurt by a mom speeding her 2.4 kids to school in her Transit (because 4x4s aren't big enough to bully the majority of other road users anymore) than by a terrorist.I don't give a shit about Theresa May, I'm not a supporter of her. If she did that then she's an idiot.
All I care about is people being safe
how can you stop someone holding a view?
Stopping them expressing that view is a different issue but you can't monitor what people think.
Surely it depends on the view?
What about going back to the example earlier is if the view was that it is fine to have relationships with children. Should those people be allowed to wander about in playgrounds and by schools for example?
Obviously people aren't mind readers, but if a man was to go on a documentary talking about it all and his family have reported him for it too then surely you would sort it then rather than wait for him to actually commit an offence?
In that case by talking about it on a documentary he would have expressed the views and have committed a criminal offence.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Surely it depends on the view?
What about going back to the example earlier is if the view was that it is fine to have relationships with children. Should those people be allowed to wander about in playgrounds and by schools for example?
Obviously people aren't mind readers, but if a man was to go on a documentary talking about it all and his family have reported him for it too then surely you would sort it then rather than wait for him to actually commit an offence?
Well yes, it will only become known that they hold that view if they express it.how can you stop someone holding a view?
Stopping them expressing that view is a different issue but you can't monitor what people think.
What is your point here?Fruitless ambition I am afraid. More likely to be hurt by a mom speeding her 2.4 kids to school in her Transit (because 4x4s aren't big enough to bully the majority of other road users anymore) than by a terrorist.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Make a law then and make sure it's reasonable and logistically possible. Possession of a flag, looking at a web page etc etc are fine while it's something you disagree with but what about something you agree with. Debate the law about flags and websites. Is it possible? Will it make things safer. Internment only made things worse with the Ira and ultimately dialogue was the answerSurely it depends on the view?
What about going back to the example earlier is if the view was that it is fine to have relationships with children. Should those people be allowed to wander about in playgrounds and by schools for example?
Obviously people aren't mind readers, but if a man was to go on a documentary talking about it all and his family have reported him for it too then surely you would sort it then rather than wait for him to actually commit an offence?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?