Does anyone agree that May should tear up our human rights? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Does anyone agree that May should tear up our human rights?

£0.00 @
I Can't believe anyone can actually trust a word she says. Coming after your human rights. But at least you'll see return on that in two years with her negotiating skills when come out of the EU. Beca… Read More
joxeruk2000 Avatar
3w, 15m agoPosted 3 weeks, 15 minutes ago
I Can't believe anyone can actually trust a word she says. Coming after your human rights. But at least you'll see return on that in two years with her negotiating skills when come out of the EU. Because she's shown no fear debating other politicians has she.
joxeruk2000 Avatar
3w, 15m agoPosted 3 weeks, 15 minutes ago
Options

Top Comments

(4)
15 Likes
What she actually said was -

She is prepared to throw out human rights laws if they restrict new tougher legislation to tackle terrorism.
She will make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects back “to their own countries” and would “restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects” if re-elected on 8 June.

Yes I am very happy for her to do that.
7 Likes
Not "our" human rights but terrorists don't deserve the same rights. I wouldn't even give them the same rights as a stray dog!
7 Likes
She is appealing to those who believe the current bill focuses too much on rights of offenders. Clearly the intention of the Bill is to protect common people in daily life. The argument being that when someone commits certain crimes then they cease to have a right to such 'Human Rights' by committing acts a normal human being wouldn't do.

I find it disgraceful anyone can say that a murderer or terrorist deserves human rights - when they themselves have taken someone else's life, they have taken some else's rights. All the Bill needs is reforming with break clauses for certain abhorrent crimes.

Edited By: super_leeds_86 on Jun 07, 2017 13:39: Revised second paragraph
5 Likes
People who say "Criminals shouldn't have human rights" miss the entire point of them. If they don't apply to everyone then they don't really apply to anyone, because you can simply accuse those you want to abuse of a crime and suddenly everything you do to them is completely legal.

All Comments

(81) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
1 Like #1
No, but I also don't think she said that. That was just a headline.
7 Likes #2
Not "our" human rights but terrorists don't deserve the same rights. I wouldn't even give them the same rights as a stray dog!
15 Likes #3
What she actually said was -

She is prepared to throw out human rights laws if they restrict new tougher legislation to tackle terrorism.
She will make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects back “to their own countries” and would “restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects” if re-elected on 8 June.

Yes I am very happy for her to do that.
1 Like #4
No, but on the understanding that if you break the law you have no rights other than a right to a trial by jury.
2 Likes #5
Yes it's a headline but if you have to strip our human rights to get a terrorist, then aren't they having the last laugh?
7 Likes #6
She is appealing to those who believe the current bill focuses too much on rights of offenders. Clearly the intention of the Bill is to protect common people in daily life. The argument being that when someone commits certain crimes then they cease to have a right to such 'Human Rights' by committing acts a normal human being wouldn't do.

I find it disgraceful anyone can say that a murderer or terrorist deserves human rights - when they themselves have taken someone else's life, they have taken some else's rights. All the Bill needs is reforming with break clauses for certain abhorrent crimes.

Edited By: super_leeds_86 on Jun 07, 2017 13:39: Revised second paragraph
3 Likes #7
Using the mask of terrorism and you lot just lap it up.

A fool and their vote are easily swayed!
1 Like #8
shasnir
What she actually said was -
She is prepared to throw out human rights laws if they restrict new tougher legislation to tackle terrorism.
She will make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects back “to their own countries” and would “restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects” if re-elected on 8 June.
Yes I am very happy for her to do that.

Lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story...
#9
o0bean0o0head0o
Not "our" human rights but terrorists don't deserve the same rights. I wouldn't even give them the same rights as a stray dog!


Hey! Stray dogs are welcome here..
#10
shasnir
What she actually said was -

She is prepared to throw out human rights laws if they restrict new tougher legislation to tackle terrorism.
She will make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects back “to their own countries” and would “restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects” if re-elected on 8 June.

Yes I am very happy for her to do that.


Shame she never put that into action 6 years ago.
#11
super_leeds_86
She is appealing to those who believe the current bill focuses too much on rights of offenders. Clearly the intention of the Bill is to protect common people in daily life. The argument being that when someone commits certain crimes then they cease to have a right to such 'Human Rights' by committing acts a normal human being wouldn't do.

I find it disgraceful anyone can say that a murderer or terrorist deserves human rights - when they themselves have taken someone else's life, they have taken some else's rights. All the Bill needs is reforming with break clauses for certain abhorrent crimes.




They were shot and killed. What would us having less human rights do to help in this instance? Why doesn't she stop selling weapons to the saudi's?
1 Like #12
joxeruk2000
Yes it's a headline but if you have to strip our human rights to get a terrorist, then aren't they having the last laugh?

I'm not sure which human rights she was talking about, I'm not even sure she knows herself. It was just pandering to a percentage of the population.
#13
Flodd
shasnir
What she actually said was -
She is prepared to throw out human rights laws if they restrict new tougher legislation to tackle terrorism.
She will make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects back “to their own countries” and would “restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects” if re-elected on 8 June.
Yes I am very happy for her to do that.

Lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story...


Have you read the sun news paper headlines. That sh*t is desperate
#14
Fine by me, but then I don't plan to get involved in terrorism. Looks like there will be some squeaky bums.
1 Like #15
shasnir
What she actually said was -

She is prepared to throw out human rights laws if they restrict new tougher legislation to tackle terrorism.
She will make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects back “to their own countries” and would “restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects” if re-elected on 8 June.

Yes I am very happy for her to do that.


But not prepared to put more police officers on the street. Hmm
#16
joxeruk2000
super_leeds_86
She is appealing to those who believe the current bill focuses too much on rights of offenders. Clearly the intention of the Bill is to protect common people in daily life. The argument being that when someone commits certain crimes then they cease to have a right to such 'Human Rights' by committing acts a normal human being wouldn't do.

I find it disgraceful anyone can say that a murderer or terrorist deserves human rights - when they themselves have taken someone else's life, they have taken some else's rights. All the Bill needs is reforming with break clauses for certain abhorrent crimes.



They were shot and killed. What would us having less human rights do to help in this instance? Why doesn't she stop selling weapons to the saudi's?

I agree we shouldn't supply weapons to Saudi Arabia. There are rights that protect you from being detained, right to liberty, rights to privacy, protection of personal data etc. I these are rights that protect you before you do something wrong.

I'm not saying I approve of her message, just that I don't think we need to embellish things to show she isn't suitable to be PM.
#17
She wants to tear up human rights in pursuit of SUSPECTED terrorists. The bar for suspicion is incredibly low and certainly not clear-cut. The risk is authorities claiming suspicion as an excuse for pursuing anyone for anything.
1 Like #18
OK, it seems as usual there are a select bunch that cannot comprehend basic things and this one being that we do not have to lose all our rights ourselves in order for criminals to lose theirs.

Of course we all think terrorists should be punished for the maximum possible for their crimes but personally, I would not waiver my own rights to guarantee this.

As has already been said, the bill could easily be amended to exclude certain crimes if they really wanted but that isn't what they really want and you fools just fall for it.
1 Like #19
joxeruk2000
super_leeds_86
She is appealing to those who believe the current bill focuses too much on rights of offenders. Clearly the intention of the Bill is to protect common people in daily life. The argument being that when someone commits certain crimes then they cease to have a right to such 'Human Rights' by committing acts a normal human being wouldn't do.
I find it disgraceful anyone can say that a murderer or terrorist deserves human rights - when they themselves have taken someone else's life, they have taken some else's rights. All the Bill needs is reforming with break clauses for certain abhorrent crimes.
They were shot and killed. What would us having less human rights do to help in this instance? Why doesn't she stop selling weapons to the saudi's?

To be fair to the terrorists they are doing a great job of either blowing themselves up, or forcing anti-terror police to shoot them. Murderers, rapists, child abusers shouldn't have human rights either, they take the rights of their victims so shouldn't hide behind a bill of rights. Like I have said in the quoted comment, the Bill doesn't need ripping up but I would like to see some perpetrators of some crimes excluding from it - Terror, Murder, Rape, Child Abuse - To name a few really bad ones. That doesn't need normal every day people to lose any rights whatsoever.


Edited By: super_leeds_86 on Jun 07, 2017 14:02: .
4 Likes #20
the human rights was introduced in around 1998 as i recall and it's been used and abused ever since.
prisoners who are serving life for murder have used it because their food isn't cooked by professional chefs! pedofiles abusing the law because of the stupidest things but as soon as the quote "my human rights are being violated" the law ball starts to roll.
i have seen squatters take over peoples premises and claim they cannot be evicted due to... Human rights!
it needs a complete overhaul as its too easily quoted and used by criminals to bypass the law
2 Likes #21
First time in my life I'm voting Conservative this election. Not that I fully agree with them, but Labour are the most regressive I have ever seen. Such a shame.

This story seems like a headline for scaremongering and selling papers.
#22
lollypoplee
the human rights was introduced in around 1998 as i recall and it's been used and abused ever since.
prisoners who are serving life for murder have used it because their food isn't cooked by professional chefs! pedofiles abusing the law because of the stupidest things but as soon as the quote "my human rights are being violated" the law ball starts to roll.
i have seen squatters take over peoples premises and claim they cannot be evicted due to... Human rights!
it needs a complete overhaul as its too easily quoted and used by criminals to bypass the law


Yeah but this is to grab a few votes. She hasn't sat down and thought about it in depth. It wasn't in the conservative manifesto. It's another u-turn. If you want someone to rip up human rights and start again I think Paul Nuttall is your man.
#23
joxeruk2000

I Can't believe anyone can actually trust a word she says. Coming after your human rights. But at least you'll see return on that in two years with her negotiating skills when come out of the EU. Because she's shown no fear debating other politicians has she.
I don't think I trust your headline, "Tear Up", our human rights have been around since the Magna Carta and some modern ones are directly from UN (via EU), a minor tweak, may be, not tearing up unless you are suggesting North Korea style human rights for Britain.
2 Likes #24
judderman
shasnir
What she actually said was -
She is prepared to throw out human rights laws if they restrict new tougher legislation to tackle terrorism.
She will make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects back “to their own countries” and would “restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects” if re-elected on 8 June.
Yes I am very happy for her to do that.
Shame she never put that into action 6 years ago.

Agree that's just a headline.

funny thing that, many of us have short memories about the number of times there has been press about wanting to scrap it, its certainly not the first time, and if the conservatives had a majority last time it would have been through but the Lib Dems would never agree to it.

quick google shows its been talked for years and years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8801651/Home-Secretary-scrap-the-Human-Rights-Act.html

JC this morning on BBC did his usual lets play nice with anyone who breaks the law, even wouldn't commit one of last attack idiots should have been allowed into the country even if they were on a watch list. Well it depends on what sort of watch list he was on. Come on even the normal JC lovers cannot agree with that.

Edited By: eslick on Jun 07, 2017 14:13
#25
Walgeon
First time in my life I'm voting Conservative this election. Not that I fully agree with them, but Labour are the most regressive I have ever seen. Such a shame.

This story seems like a headline for scaremongering and selling papers.


Oh you mean like the 'Apologists for terror' headline?

Unfortunately under the conservatives you won't be able to get your head tested as the NHS will be on its knees.
#26
joxeruk2000
lollypoplee
the human rights was introduced in around 1998 as i recall and it's been used and abused ever since.
prisoners who are serving life for murder have used it because their food isn't cooked by professional chefs! pedofiles abusing the law because of the stupidest things but as soon as the quote "my human rights are being violated" the law ball starts to roll.
i have seen squatters take over peoples premises and claim they cannot be evicted due to... Human rights!
it needs a complete overhaul as its too easily quoted and used by criminals to bypass the law


Yeah but this is to grab a few votes. She hasn't sat down and thought about it in depth. It wasn't in the conservative manifesto. It's another u-turn. If you want someone to rip up human rights and start again I think Paul Nuttall is your man.


i never said "rip up" did i?
i said OVERHAUL ;)
#27
lollypoplee
because their food isn't cooked by professional chefs!
could you show us a picture of a few plates of food not cooked by professionals and a few plates of food cooked by professionals as a result of invoking human rights violations?
#28
eslick
judderman
shasnir
What she actually said was -
She is prepared to throw out human rights laws if they restrict new tougher legislation to tackle terrorism.
She will make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects back “to their own countries” and would “restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects” if re-elected on 8 June.
Yes I am very happy for her to do that.
Shame she never put that into action 6 years ago.

Agree that's just a headline.

funny thing that, many of us have short memories about the number of times there has been press about wanting to scrap it, its certainly not the first time, and if the conservatives had a majority last time it would have been through but the Lib Dems would never agree to it.

quick google shows its been talked for years and years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8801651/Home-Secretary-scrap-the-Human-Rights-Act.html

JC this morning on BBC did his usual lets play nice with anyone who breaks the law, even wouldn't commit one of last attack idiots should have been allowed into the country even if they were on a watch list. Well it depends on what sort of watch list he was on. Come on even the normal JC lovers cannot agree with that.


Wouldn't you like to be in possession of all the facts and make an informed decision before you give a definitive answer ?
#29
joxeruk2000

I Can't believe anyone can actually trust a word she says. Coming after your human rights. But at least you'll see return on that in two years with her negotiating skills when come out of the EU. Because she's shown no fear debating other politicians has she.
Which bits here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents is to be torn up for example? Could you reference the section numbers to be torn up?
#30
It is obvious that the way May expressed it was as rhetoric in the run up to election day, but yes, human rights needs to be amended,as it is continually abused. Since the UK is Brexiting, a Bill of Rights will be introduced anyway, regardless of your party affiliation.

It is necessary if the UK wants sovereignty of it's laws, and will mean that the human rights laws as we know them right now will change, it's just a matter of time.
#31
splender
joxeruk2000

I Can't believe anyone can actually trust a word she says. Coming after your human rights. But at least you'll see return on that in two years with her negotiating skills when come out of the EU. Because she's shown no fear debating other politicians has she.
Which bits here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents is to be torn up for example? Could you reference the section numbers to be torn up?


Isn't that the point? You don't know what she's going to tear up do you. Probably be running through wheat fields laughing at you whilst she is though. Haha
1 Like #32
Towelie
Using the mask of terrorism and you lot just lap it up.
A fool and their vote are easily swayed!
Only a fool wouldn't see security as a priority?
1 Like #33
davewave
Towelie
Using the mask of terrorism and you lot just lap it up.
A fool and their vote are easily swayed!
Only a fool wouldn't see security as a priority?

Only a fool wouldn't know if they were asking a question or just making a statement. (_;)

Where did I say it shouldn't be a priority?

To prioritise something doesn't have to be to the detrimental effect of 99.99% of the population.

Take you hatred specs of for a short while and open your eyes to the complete picture!
1 Like #34
Towelie
davewave
Towelie
Using the mask of terrorism and you lot just lap it up.
A fool and their vote are easily swayed!
Only a fool wouldn't see security as a priority?

Only a fool wouldn't know if they were asking a question or just making a statement. (_;)

Where did I say it shouldn't be a priority?

To prioritise something doesn't have to be to the detrimental effect of 99.99% of the population.

Take you hatred specs of for a short while and open your eyes to the complete picture!


'hatred specs'? Well that's a bizarre phrase you've used.

Concern about security isn't about hatred but feel free to spin it any way you want.

If difficult decisions mean safer streets then yes people have to be monitored more closely to save us from crude attacks by Islamist terrorists in UK.

Alternatively Corbyn could invite them for tea to sympathize with them.
1 Like #35
Towelie
Using the mask of terrorism and you lot just lap it up.
A fool and their vote are easily swayed!


I agree with your sentiment. I'm convinced one day prisoners will be microchipped, we'll get used to it, and the end product will be babies microchipped at birth. It will be dressed up as driving licence info, passport info etc, but it will be a bad day.
1 Like #36
Towelie
Using the mask of terrorism and you lot just lap it up.
A fool and their vote are easily swayed!
OllieSt
I agree with your sentiment. I'm convinced one day prisoners will be microchipped, we'll get used to it, and the end product will be babies microchipped at birth. It will be dressed up as driving licence info, passport info etc, but it will be a bad day.

It would not be too much effort to take DNA samples at birth.
5 Likes #37
People who say "Criminals shouldn't have human rights" miss the entire point of them. If they don't apply to everyone then they don't really apply to anyone, because you can simply accuse those you want to abuse of a crime and suddenly everything you do to them is completely legal.
1 Like #38
super_leeds_86
She is appealing to those who believe the current bill focuses too much on rights of offenders. Clearly the intention of the Bill is to protect common people in daily life. The argument being that when someone commits certain crimes then they cease to have a right to such 'Human Rights' by committing acts a normal human being wouldn't do.I find it disgraceful anyone can say that a murderer or terrorist deserves human rights - when they themselves have taken someone else's life, they have taken some else's rights. All the Bill needs is reforming with break clauses for certain abhorrent crimes.

100% This^
#39
joxeruk2000
Wouldn't you like to be in possession of all the facts and make an informed decision before you give a definitive answer ?


only fact I need is you are on a terror watch list you arent getting into this country, full stop. Not much more facts you need, if you dont agree with the fact you are there, work that out before trying to get into the country. I cannot get into many countries across the world without a proper visa, so why should someone on a watch list think they can just walk in. Time for our Politicians to wake up to this including a man who wants to be our MP.
#40
CamoChris
People who say "Criminals shouldn't have human rights" miss the entire point of them. If they don't apply to everyone then they don't really apply to anyone, because you can simply accuse those you want to abuse of a crime and suddenly everything you do to them is completely legal.
100% This ^

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!