Horrid . However , if this gets out today , it will cost Labour more votes . Some of the press will be all over this like a rash .
I am suggesting that we already have hate speech law in place. If a far right person was on video or went on facebook stating "we must attack muslims" there would be a knock on the door the next day. Choudhary might ave bee saying "wage jihad" instead of attack and "Kafir" instead of non-muslim but it was clear what he was saying. We already had laws in the control orders that Labour brought in and they could have been used. We are at an election where people are screaming that the Tories want to ditch human rights and that the EU is a shining example yet the reality is that EU countries such as France and the Netherlands were becoming increasingly frustrated that we don't touch these kind of people because of "human rights" and the Tories are not ditching human rights, just trying to eliminate the parts that stop them being able to maintain security properly. We should not be unable to touch people like Choudhary for 20 years and eventually getting him on a weak charge that means he will be up for early release next year!!! There were vast amounts of evidence from people within his circle as well as others that were saying what he was doing, let alone the words he openly spoke. All this time our TV stations thought it was a great idea to have him on and try and debate him while he laughed at the free publicity. He was on Newsnight no end of times as well as Channel4 news several times. Both beacons of liberal thinking that think they can debate anything and set records straight. Their only success ever was Nick Griffin and BNP who had limited appeal to start with.
This gets very boring Ides. No mention of the people that have hijacked Labour the once "anti-EU" party I notice!!! Is that because they have made the right choice in your eyes which of course then means the other lot have made the wrong choice? The right choice in your eyes means you moan about one party changing their mind but the other did the right thing?
I would think they would do the opposite TBH although I could be wrong. I would think they would lay off her recent performances i.e. the car crashes this year and focus just on McDonnell and Corbyn.
Get out there and vote for anyone who isn't going to flog off the NHS, reduce police numbers, rip up the Human Rights Act, increase class sizes, drive teachers out of the profession, sell off Network Rail (the last properly functioning, accountable body on the railways), drive a clapped out Chieftan tank through our relationship with Europe, and hold hands in public with Donald Trump. Vote for the nice guys ffs. The ones who care, about our hospitals, our kids, about the environment, about jobs and transport and public utilities working for the public. The ones who are not falling over themselves to sell arms to the Saudis.
As you say what I want is already the law, so out of interest which human rights are you saying are getting in the way and should be dropped and in which circumstances?
It was human rights that stopped us being able to hold terror suspects indefinitely, made the government give up on control orders and makes the security services scared to use TPIMs. If there is reasonable suspicion they should be able to act. The Human rights interpretations by our courts means that our security services are scared to use the weaker powers we still have and wait for water tight evidence rather than act on "reasonable suspicion" as they used to with control orders. Like with the problems the police force have trying to recruit armed police from their ranks of unarmed because they fear they will end up on murder charges, our courts and those that fight these things are actually weakening our security. Choudhary should have been on a control order very early on, not tip toe around waiting for him to actually do something and then doing him on a weak charge anyway. He was eventually locked up for the equivalent of getting the mafia guys on money laundering charges instead of murder charges. 5 year sentence, out in 2. Butt would have been on a control order a decade ago.
Yes Imps, because detention without trial worked so well in Northern Ireland didn't it? The threat of terrorism should never be used by governments to trample on the rule of law. That way tyranny lies.
By the lack of an answer to which rights I take it you mean any/all human rights? Reasonable suspicion is very dubious and I think you would be creating more hatred towards our goverment by muslims from that than Choudhry could ever do, and giving him more fuel to spread that hatred. Muslims will be afraid to speak up against our goverment for the same reason you say our police are afraid to take up arms, that they will be unfairly caught up in that law. You said you don't want to target sympathizers but i can't seem them not feeling oppressed by this change of law, and that will drive them right into the arms of IS.
It isn't trampling on the rule of law is it if the law is there? Why does saying "death to Muslims" instantly get pulled up on hate speech yet saying death to Jews, death to infidels or Tafir (non Muslims) not get the same treatment? They will take "little people" to court and jail them like Azhar Ahmed who posted a comment on an article about 6 British soldiers being killed in Afghanistan "all soldiers should die and go to hell" Why do they not do the same for all people or is it another case of being scared to go after the high profile people? Benjamin Flatters was jailed for posting anti-muslim comments after the Lee Rigby incident. They should both be "trampled" on whoever they are whatever their race and whatever their religious or non religious leaning!!
You have said you are happy with internment Imps - imprisonment without trial. Abolishing that particular manifestation of tyranny was one of the fundamental principles enshrined in Magna Carta.
There is a reason Choudhary is serving his term in isolation away from other inmates!! Muslims obviously aren't afraid to speak up against our government because they are on screen saying they did speak up but nothing was done. Nothing was done because police are hampered by the way human rights lawyers are happy to fight the cases of any person, no matter their danger to the public, in the knowledge that human rights laws can be wangled to suit their case. Is it about time that human rights lawyers were accountable for their actions? If these cases were brought to court and a human rights lawyer gets someone off they know, and everybody knows, is a danger then those lawyers should be accountable, when the people they get off go and do what they should have been prevented from doing! Of course a lot of this watering down came while Kier starmer was head of the CPS and refusing to approve lots of cases to go to court. He still to this day says too many hate speech crimes are going to court!! And who of course made loads of money as a Human rights lawyer. Your shining light that you think is the saviour of Brexit talks: Ever since it was introduced by Tony Blair's government in 1998, the Human Rights Act has done more to diminish the sense of fair play and natural justice in this country than any other piece of legislation. That is why, to his credit, David Cameron has pledged to replace it with a more carefully drafted Bill of Rights that will restore balance in favour of the victims of crime. The howls of outrage from the Left have been utterly predictable. But What is far more troubling is the intervention of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, who came forward this week to attack the Tory plans head-on. This would be the same Keir Starmer who, as a practising barrister, made a considerable fortune out of the Human Rights Act. One of its original champions, he was named Human Rights Lawyer Of The Year in 2001 and has written a plethora of books and articles on the subject. Yet once he accepted the position as DPP, Starmer should have set aside his private beliefs. He is supposed to be a politically-neutral servant of the Crown; independent, not a Left-wing flag-bearer for an Act that, time and again, has betrayed ordinary people's sense of fair play. This, after all, is the same Human Rights Act that upheld a prisoner's right to donate sperm. That prevented the Italian teenager who murdered headmaster Philip Lawrence from being deported. That allowed the Afghan nationals who hijacked a plane at Stansted to remain in Britain.
So its bad for a a policeman who goes after a Terrorist and accidentally shoots somebody innocent to be accountable, but its fine for a human rights lawyer to be accountable for helping a muslim? You've missed my point on the first part, I'm saying that muslims sympathetic to hardcore Islam, but not terrorists, would be afraid of speaking out against the government if such things could be taken as evidence against them as you are suggesting (which you are). That will lead to a greater feeling of oppression among these communities and give preachers a much stronger argument. Especially if human rights lawyers are afraid to speak out for them! That would lead to more extremists and more preachers not less. we need to be showing we are more on their side than IS if we ever want to tackle this extremism in the UK. Although to actually get rid of it we have to tackle the source outside of the UK. And that's not even mentioning the negative affect on our overall democracy that Archers mentioned and how those powers could be misused which is a far greater concern than anything extremists could do.
The list of possible restrictions and obligations that can be included in a control order is long. It can place restrictions on what the person can use or possess, their place of work, place of residence, whom they speak to, and where they can travel. Furthermore, the person can be ordered to surrender their passport, let the police visit their home at any time, report to officials at a specific time and place, and allow themselves to be electronically tagged so their movements can be tracked. I am not talking about setting up 20 Guantanamos in the UK. see above. My mate got in a fight defending his Indian friend last year. The fact the person he got in the fight with was calling him a "dirty mus*** Pa**" was by the by but he defended him. My mate had to wear a tag for 12 weeks for that!!! And be in his house between the hours of 7pm and 7am every day throughout that 12 week period.
One Guantanamo is too many. Theresa May has indicated that she is willing to rob all of us of our hard won Civil Liberties under the pretence of fighting terrorism. If she is serious about fighting terrorism than let her provide the police and security services with the resourced they need to do the job by due process of law. Not sure what your mate getting tagged for kicking off in public has to do with anything Imps? You confuse me sometimes.
When did I say it is fine for the policeman not to be accountable? Nope you are not reading what I am saying. You are saying that I want all sympathisers to be taken to court. I am not. Butt was quite obviously a clear and present danger, Choudhary was for 20 years the same. They are not sympathisers. And your point is not borne out by fact. This week we have been hearing on the news from multiple "sympathisers" that they had informed the police about their worries about Butt. The police could do nothing because their hands are tied since the human rights lawyers got in and made it almost impossible to use TPIMS and won their day to get rid of control orders. Why was the guy that came from Italy, that the security services had been advised about not sent back the way he came? Redouane was refused Asylum in the UK but then married a British woman in Ireland and was then given an EU residency card by Ireland meaning he could now reside in the UK. Why is it so easy to get round the rules this week and how many other asylum cases we refuse are using the same tactics? In Ireland, like the UK Muslims have been talking to Police and authorities and tipping them off about people yet nothing is done. They are not scared off from doing so. There is a big difference between saying that they agree with something and actively going out preaching about it trying to encourage people to actively do something. I would probably smile if I read a racist had been beaten up. I would sympathise with the attacker. That isn't a problem. If I were to encourage people to beat racists up or go out telling people it was right to beat racists up then I would be in the wrong. There is a clear line there. Surely we should be using whatever measures we need to to keep people safe?
I just want people to vote for hope not fear & hatred. Vote for whom you think best aligns with your beliefs rather than voting to prevent another.
I think that's the point. Guys are still being indoctrinated and you can't arrest anyone for looking at extremist material (or if you can, it's not being done). Also you can't follow people 24 hours a day. Even if you could there are 3000 really extreme people (supposedly). Not accounting for the others, thats 60,000 people we need to hire to watch and follow them (not including the growing number i suspect as the guys are still preaching and recruiting). That's basically 2/3rds of our police force. Even then they'll just be watching them until they actually go and cause some terror somewhere
No, i'm saying you don't want sympathisers to be taken to court but they will be by what you are proposing. and at the very least they will think they will be. also how is telling the police that people are extremist preachers speaking up against the government? Using current Imps logic, he probably thinks that having the law saying its okay to go after muslims based on "reasonable suspicion" will somehow reduce the cases of this happening
