May: I Will Rip Up Human Rights Laws To Fight Terrorism

[c.d.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/may-i%e2%80%99ll-rip-up-human-rights-laws-that-impede-new-terror-legislation/ar-BBCaRyG?li=BBnb7Kz

c.d.

[GUT]

And that scares me.

Some call for the same type of thing here "Lock them up and throw away the key" comes the cry.

I seem to remember a time when the "civilised world" went to war with people who thought that type of "justice" was right.

[Sam Flynn]

I seem to remember a time when the "civilised world" went to war with people who thought that type of "justice" was right.

Precisely the kind of "justice" that ISIS would advocate. Is that fighting fire with fire, or stooping to their level? I'll let the reader decide.

[GUT]

Precisely the kind of "justice" that ISIS would advocate. Is that fighting fire with fire, or stooping to their level? I'll let the reader decide.

I have my view.

And have sympathy for those with a contrary view.

[Svensson]

I think tomorrow's election is not a foregone conclusion as it might have seemed just a month ago. May called the election in increase her majority of 12 for whatever reason (that's not a bad majority to work with as long as you have your own party on your side, see Trump for examples where this is not the case) and to effectively bury Labour. Thing is: if she reduces her majority or even if it ends up a hung parliament, she is most likely a goner and we will have another leadership election from Friday onwards. So Corbyn doesn't even have to win to expedite her retirement. Her refusal to fire back at Trump over his spat with Sadiq Khan (a meek "The London Mayor is doing a good job" won't do here) and the Tory's continued insistence on giving Trump his state visit will have cost her more percentage points.

Quick question for those with longer memories: During the height of Irish Republican terrorism in the UK during the 70s and 80s, which cost around 1800 innocent lives, was there ever any talk about reducing human rights in order to fight this?

Cheers.

[Jon Guy]

Quick question for those with longer memories: During the height of Irish Republican terrorism in the UK during the 70s and 80s, which cost around 1800 innocent lives, was there ever any talk about reducing human rights in order to fight this?

The army imposed curfew`s and gave instructions to shoot to kill.
Does this count ?

[Svensson]

Not really because the curfews were imposed in parts of Belfast and for a limited time which was at the epicentre of the troubles whereas many of the bombings took place in Mainland UK where the was no curfew. In fact, it seems that Isis have already imposed their own curfews in their territories.

Shoot to Kill is already authorised now as we have seen on Saturday.

May is talking about changing the laws in the entire country and permanently.

[Jon Guy]

Not really because the curfews were imposed in parts of Belfast and for a limited time which was at the epicentre of the troubles whereas many of the bombings took place in Mainland UK where the was no curfew. In fact, it seems that Isis have already imposed their own curfews in their territories.

You are correct, but Belfast is still Britain, and curfew`s and shoot to kill policies are far stronger than anything May is planning to introduce, and when you say permanently, you mean until things calm down and the Tories amend the law, or in 4 years time when another party can change it, depending if the British public want it. In fact, the British public can have their say on this very matter tomorrow.

Shoot to Kill is already authorised now as we have seen on Saturday.

The shoot to kill policy in NI was aimed specifically at people throwing petrol bombs from a hundred yards away, many of them youths.

All May wants is to give the power to the security agencies to secure people who pose a threat (like at least one of the killers from last week).

It really is no big deal for law abiding British citizens.

[Jon Guy]

Sigh...and they`ve just found the body of the missing Frenchman in the Thames.

Which makes me think ... what is the current procedure with the bodies of the terrorists ? Are they handed back to their families to be buried according to their faith ?

If so, perhaps we should refuse to hand the corpses over, and like the executed Newgate prisoners, they should be buried without ceremony under a pavement somewhere. I imagine this would play on the minds of any religious extremist.

I`d go one further and stick their head on Traitor`s Gate, but that`s just me and maybe a step too far.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Too many concessions have already been given to religious extremists. What would we have thought just 5 or 10 years ago if someone had have told us that there were 85+ Sharia courts openly in operation in this country?! No one bats any eyelid! We've long since past further than the 'thin end of the wedge.' People are afraid to speak about their concerns or anger for fear of being branded with the made up 'illness' Islamophobia.

I'm utterly pessimistic about the future I'm afraid and my sympathy goes out to anyone with children or grandchildren. I hope that things change but it needs courage of thought, speech and actions and I see very little of it at the moment. Especially in the public sphere.

Regards
Herlock

[andy1867]

I think tomorrow's election is not a foregone conclusion as it might have seemed just a month ago. May called the election in increase her majority of 12 for whatever reason (that's not a bad majority to work with as long as you have your own party on your side, see Trump for examples where this is not the case) and to effectively bury Labour. Thing is: if she reduces her majority or even if it ends up a hung parliament, she is most likely a goner and we will have another leadership election from Friday onwards. So Corbyn doesn't even have to win to expedite her retirement. Her refusal to fire back at Trump over his spat with Sadiq Khan (a meek "The London Mayor is doing a good job" won't do here) and the Tory's continued insistence on giving Trump his state visit will have cost her more percentage points.

Quick question for those with longer memories: During the height of Irish Republican terrorism in the UK during the 70s and 80s, which cost around 1800 innocent lives, was there ever any talk about reducing human rights in order to fight this?

Cheers.

It depends on what you see as a "Curtailment of civil liberties" or "Reduction of human rights"
I followed football in the 80's...I still do...I thought it infringed my human rights when I wasn't allowed in pubs around Shepherds Bush when Wednesday played QPR, was fuming when held in a line for half an hour by police on Wood lane....I didn't actually feel the same anger when escorted down Cold blow lane on a wet Tuesday night over the cobbles surrounded by London coppers.
Its a matter of your own safety at times isn't it?
To me..its now a matter of your own safety, and if you want everything "Safe and sound", theres sometimes a price to pay.
Its worrying that English football hooligans who are "On the list" can't travel abroad, but I understand it, because some of them have the potential to be violent...So when it comes to potential terrorists who are "On the list" but shuttle from Syria to Sussex, Damascus to Dagenham..Its a bit ridiculous isn't it?

[Pcdunn]

I read that Nigel Farage said in an interview on the conservative talk show ""Fox and Friends" that British Muslims should be "rounded up" and put in "internment camps" until the terror threat is over.

This prompted the host to disavow the idea during his program, and the Fox network to issue a stronger disavowal of that "distasteful and reprehensible" idea. (After all, Roosevelt tried that during World War II with the so-called "relocation camps" for Japanese and Japanese-Americans citizens, and it was bad idea then.)

Is there any real support for Farage's approach?

[andy1867]

I read that Nigel Farage said in an interview on the conservative talk show ""Fox and Friends" that British Muslims should be "rounded up" and put in "internment camps" until the terror threat is over.

This prompted the host to disavow the idea during his program, and the Fox network to issue a stronger disavowal of that "distasteful and reprehensible" idea. (After all, Roosevelt tried that during World War II with the so-called "relocation camps" for Japanese and Japanese-Americans citizens, and it was bad idea then.)

Is there any real support for Farage's approach?

Lets be honest..If it horrified Fox news....................?

[Pcdunn]

Lol, just checking...

Lets be honest..If it horrified Fox news....................?

Yeah, that's what I thought too, but these days you can't tell just where people will draw the line. The whole Fox News department has had a rough year so far, too. Thanks, Andy.

[Sam Flynn]

Its worrying that English football hooligans who are "On the list" can't travel abroad, but I understand it, because some of them have the potential to be violent...

I think they're on the list because they have been violent, i.e. they have "previous" for actually committing acts of hooliganism. The difference between listed football hooligans and the terrorists is that most of the latter are "first offenders" only at the point at which they commit their atrocities.

I do sympathise with your point, however.