kingo15 Posted June 7, 2017 Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 If they get rewritten then it will be to suit the security services and courts regarding acts if terror or suspected acts of terror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted June 7, 2017 Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) . Edited June 7, 2017 by Dr D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happypig Posted June 7, 2017 Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 When human rights legislation is used by the guilty to tie the hands of police and the courts there is clearly something wrong. We do have to make sure the pendulum doesn't swing the other way though. There was the famous instance of a Council quoting anti terrorist legislation (right of entry) as their justification to go into people's gardens and inspect the contents of their recycling bins. What ever she does Corbyn will be all over it, doing what he does best. So will the Lib Damps That was actually the regulation of investagtory powers act or RIPA... designed to put safeguards in place around surveillance and intrusion The ability of councils to conduct such surveillance has since been curtailed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted June 7, 2017 Report Share Posted June 7, 2017 RIPA did not give Councils the right to intrude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 This, my opinions on human rights, 'if you breech someone else's, you lose yours' The trouble with that principle is that you want to get on their case before they start breaching other peoples human rights. The people who commit the attacks are at the bottom of the terrorist ladder, there are already common links being established between the various attackers, including the killers of Lee Rigby and the current crop and people further up the ladder. The problem lies in the level of proof needed to get these higher up people into court because they don't leave evidence behind them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 The trouble with that principle is that you want to get on their case before they start breaching other peoples human rights. The people who commit the attacks are at the bottom of the terrorist ladder, there are already common links being established between the various attackers, including the killers of Lee Rigby and the current crop and people further up the ladder. The problem lies in the level of proof needed to get these higher up people into court because they don't leave evidence behind them. I agree, it doesn't help catch the people behind the scenes, but my point is still valid and applies to all crimes that breech people rights, not just terror related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord v Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 The ability for a government to arrest, imprison, deport, freeze assets and put monitoring/report orders on anyone suspected of terrorism is an extremely powerful and dangerous thing. While pretty much everyone here would agree that the approach is justifiable in the case of those responsible for the attacks in Manchester and London there is a real danger of governmental over reach. The definition of terror and terrorism in legal terms is not straightforward and is quite broad. It would be legislation easily turned against any group the government didn't like. Today it's extremist Muslims, tomorrow it's ******, Buddhists, gun owners and anyone else's face that doesn't 'fit'. (Extreme examples, but the point stands.) The bar for 'suspected' is low and could easily drop lower. Human rights is what stops governments acting like despots and dictators. It's not perfect, and there are issues but their erosion should be worrying for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davyo Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 The human rights problem can be fixed easily. Keep it, as is, in full, just add one sentence right at the beginning, "If you violate or hold the human rights of others in contempt then you will forfeit those rights yourself." I'm sure someone more eloquent could write it better but you get the jist. Why should a criminal behead an entirely innocent person on the streets of our country and then hide behind the very same rules he showed no regard for. It's madness. +1 If you violate or hold the human rights of others in contempt then you will forfeit those rights yourself." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 There is the old law of Sedition which could be brought back out the archives and dusted down. It would require updating to put it in the modern context but I believe a lot of opposition could be thwarted by amending something which already exists. In London the police have resurrected the old Vagrancy Act to deal with street beggers in much the same way. It was always there just not being used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord v Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 There is the old law of Sedition which could be brought back out the archives and dusted down. It would require updating to put it in the modern context but I believe a lot of opposition could be thwarted by amending something which already exists. In London the police have resurrected the old Vagrancy Act to deal with street beggers in much the same way. It was always there just not being used. I think Lord Kinnock was talking about prosecuting for treason as well. Again - might need updating but the laws are there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) The ability for a government to arrest, imprison, deport, freeze assets and put monitoring/report orders on anyone suspected of terrorism is an extremely powerful and dangerous thing. The watchword here is 'without good reason' a convicted criminal can have any of these things applied to them, whilst I dont believe anyone has been deported for 'suspected ' terrorism, the job of the police and judicial system is to protect the people via upholding the law. Some of the first things you hear when there is a terrorist atrocity is that the security forces 'failed' did they fail because of incompetence, or lack of resources/powers ? The bar for 'suspected' is low and could easily drop lower. Thats irrelevant if there is nothing you can do, because the law ties your hands at investigating further. Human rights is what stops governments acting like despots and dictators. It's not perfect, and there are issues but their erosion should be worrying for everyone. But are they being eroded? When someone in power talks about altering human rights laws, its like the left wing hit the 'triggered ' button ,and the full 1984 scenario comes to fruition (in their minds) Does anybody here know of ANY situation where the newer anti terror laws have been abused ? Im pretty sure the media would have been on it like a rash ! I think Lord Kinnock was talking about prosecuting for treason as well. Again - might need updating but the laws are there. treason ˈtriːz(ə)n/ noun the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government. "they were convicted of treason" synonyms: treachery, lese-majesty; More the action of betraying someone or something. plural noun: treasons "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith" synonyms: treachery, lese-majesty; More historical the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband. noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons Does Corbyn qualify ? Edited June 8, 2017 by Rewulf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 treason ˈtriːz(ə)n/ noun the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government. "they were convicted of treason" synonyms: treachery, lese-majesty; More the action of betraying someone or something. plural noun: treasons "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith" synonyms: treachery, lese-majesty; More historical the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband. noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons Does Corbyn qualify ? Not too sure if Corbyn qualifies (he probably does) but Abbott certainly does and the evedence is in an article she wrote. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40076195?SThisFB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 The ability for a government to arrest, imprison, deport, freeze assets and put monitoring/report orders on anyone suspected of terrorism is an extremely powerful and dangerous thing. While pretty much everyone here would agree that the approach is justifiable in the case of those responsible for the attacks in Manchester and London there is a real danger of governmental over reach. The definition of terror and terrorism in legal terms is not straightforward and is quite broad. It would be legislation easily turned against any group the government didn't like. Today it's extremist Muslims, tomorrow it's ******, Buddhists, gun owners and anyone else's face that doesn't 'fit'. (Extreme examples, but the point stands.) The bar for 'suspected' is low and could easily drop lower. Human rights is what stops governments acting like despots and dictators. It's not perfect, and there are issues but their erosion should be worrying for everyone. And this is what many seem not able to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 treason ˈtriːz(ə)n/ noun the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government. "they were convicted of treason" synonyms: treachery, lese-majesty; More the action of betraying someone or something. plural noun: treasons "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith" synonyms: treachery, lese-majesty; More historical the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband. noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons Does Corbyn qualify ? Yes he certantly does and so does Farrage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 If anyone accesses a child pornography site they can expect a knock on the door. The authorities are able to be tough when they aren't afraid of upsetting the people they are investigating Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 Very good point Vince, don't ban these sites that there looking at, have them bugged or what ever they do in cyber world as soon as they start looking go round turn there house upside down looking for anything suspicious. If there in social housing or on benefits and they access stuff on bombs or terrorism evict or stop there money, first time not the the sixth. And then tag them your being watched for twelve months Misbehave jail or deport if possible ie not british Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted June 8, 2017 Report Share Posted June 8, 2017 Yes he certantly does and so does Farrage. Please explain that one to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.