ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168 
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jun 6, 2017 10:50:56 GMT
What about when the legislation does effect your human rights while doing little to nothing to prevent terrorism? In the case I am thinking of, the anti terrorism/anti money laundering/ anti drug running/ anti people smuggling demons were dragged out to defend a law that is definitely negatively effecting millions of people (including you, even if you don't know it) and yet has nothing to do with catching any of the above mentioned bad guys. The audience however will be ready to pillory anybody who wants the law repealed by claiming that person must be for terrorism, money laundering, people smuggling, tax evasion... In principle I don’t disagree with what you say. What I’m saying is that the majority have a right to be protected from terrorism by the state which must not have it’s hands tied by political correctness. Quite so, there's a job to be done and The Authorities should be allowed to get on with it unfettered, pronto. There is always "colateral" however certain individuals should have been thrown out years ago, and if they get tortured back in their country of origin, what a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jun 6, 2017 11:02:14 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 6, 2017 13:35:52 GMT
What I’m saying is that the majority have a right to be protected from terrorism by the state Absolutely... If by "political correctness", you mean human rights legislation, then you are ABSOLUTELY 100% wrong. It's when there's the risk of politicians making knee-jerk crackdowns that human rights should be MOST protected... (And I mean the reality of the human rights legislation that's been in place in this country for over 60 years, not the Daily Mail lies)
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jun 6, 2017 15:15:51 GMT
What I’m saying is that the majority have a right to be protected from terrorism by the state Absolutely... If by "political correctness", you mean human rights legislation, then you are ABSOLUTELY 100% wrong. It's when there's the risk of politicians making knee-jerk crackdowns that human rights should be MOST protected... (And I mean the reality of the human rights legislation that's been in place in this country for over 60 years, not the Daily Mail lies) No, it’s not human rights legislation I’m referring to, but the one sided political correctness that prevails in anything concerning a certain religion and inhibits any serious discussion about stopping radicalisation and devising a realistic and united approach to dealing with terrorism. This is comparable to the closing down of any debate about immigration in the early years of this century by merely calling someone racist for having the temerity to raise the subject. If I may say so, overlook the right wing source of the following article in which the police appear to imply that the real danger is “hate crime” and maybe even a backlash from the majority although I don’t see any likelihood of this other than perhaps “lone wolf” attacks by a tiny number of losers who follow questionable groups. If “hate crime” is such a problem why were Abu Hamza and Anjem Choudary allowed to spew out their vitriol for so long without being charged, never mind deported in Hamza’s case? I would like to think that Theresa May’s “enough is enough” will be a genuine attempt to tackle the cancer of Islamist (I do take note of your comments by the way) terrorism including the political correctness preventing real action although I'm not holding my breath. www.conservativewoman.co.uk/dr-campbell-campbell-jack-pc-obsession-hate-crime-least-problems/
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 6, 2017 15:48:04 GMT
If “hate crime” is such a problem why were Abu Hamza and Anjem Choudary allowed to spew out their vitriol for so long without being charged, never mind deported in Hamza’s case? Extradited, not deported. But it's simple: Evidence, mostly (Or, rather, lack thereof) Remember that Choudary is a qualified lawyer. He's not stupid, and knows EXACTLY how far to go without crossing the line. He finally got that line wrong, was arrested in August 2015, tried and found guilty. Hamza was detained for extradition in 2004, and convicted of 11 offences in the UK in 2006. The UK courts give the OK for him to be extradited in 2007. He appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which finally decided in 2010 that the US prison system's "special measures" may be inhumane. That was decided in favour of extradition in September 2012, he appealed, lost and was extradited in October - but had been in prison since 2004... But I think you might mean Abu Qatada. He was convicted in absentia in Jordan in 1999, on the basis of evidence obtained by torture. He was arrested in the UK in 2001, and fairly quickly released without charge. He was arrested again in 2002, and detained without charge. He was released in 2005, and re-detained five months later for extradition. A court approved that extradition in Feb 2007, which he appealed. In April 2008, the UK court of appeal ruled he could not be extradited, as a retrial in Jordan would still be based on torture. He was released on bail, with a 22 hour curfew. He was re-detained six months later, on the basis he might breach the bail conditions in the future... The House of Lords decided in Feb 2009 he could be extradited, because evidence from torture wasn't a big problem after all. In Feb 2012, it was decided by the ECourtHR that torture evidence was a problem, and he was bailed again on 22hr curfew, no phones, no internet. Two months later, re-detained again, when the Jordanians promised faithfully that they wouldn't use torture evidence. In November 2012, a UK court bailed him again, because they didn't believe the Jordanians. In March 2013, he was re-arrested again... and in May 2013 he agreed to go to Jordan if they promised faithfully not to use the torture evidence. He went, the Jordanian court found him not guilty in June 2014, and released him... There is always "colateral" however certain individuals should have been thrown out years ago, and if they get tortured back in their country of origin, what a shame. And that's a very short step to "extraordinary rendition".
|
|
|
|
Post by nanniema on Jun 6, 2017 15:52:27 GMT
yorkshireman Though I agree with your comment on political correctness I noticed that like a lot of people (including myself), you did a last second swerve around the M word and called it "a certain religion".
It would appear that although PC is universally derided it is now firmly embedded in our psyche.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jun 6, 2017 15:52:43 GMT
If “hate crime” is such a problem why were Abu Hamza and Anjem Choudary allowed to spew out their vitriol for so long without being charged, never mind deported in Hamza’s case? Extradited, not deported. But it's simple: Evidence, mostly (Or, rather, lack thereof) Remember that Choudary is a qualified lawyer. He's not stupid, and knows EXACTLY how far to go without crossing the line. He finally got that line wrong, was arrested in August 2015, tried and found guilty. Hamza was detained for extradition in 2004, and convicted of 11 offences in the UK in 2006. The UK courts give the OK for him to be extradited in 2007. He appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which finally decided in 2010 that the US prison system's "special measures" may be inhumane. That was decided in favour of extradition in September 2012, he appealed, lost and was extradited in October - but had been in prison since 2004... But I think you might mean Abu Qatada. He was convicted in absentia in Jordan in 1999, on the basis of evidence obtained by torture. He was arrested in the UK in 2001, and fairly quickly released without charge. He was arrested again in 2002, and detained without charge. He was released in 2005, and re-detained five months later for extradition. A court approved that extradition in Feb 2007, which he appealed. In April 2008, the UK court of appeal ruled he could not be extradited, as a retrial in Jordan would still be based on torture. He was released on bail, with a 22 hour curfew. He was re-detained six months later, on the basis he might breach the bail conditions in the future... The House of Lords decided in Feb 2009 he could be extradited, because evidence from torture wasn't a big problem after all. In Feb 2012, it was decided by the ECourtHR that torture evidence was a problem, and he was bailed again on 22hr curfew, no phones, no internet. Two months later, re-detained again, when the Jordanians promised faithfully that they wouldn't use torture evidence. In November 2012, a UK court bailed him again, because they didn't believe the Jordanians. In March 2013, he was re-arrested again... and in May 2013 he agreed to go to Jordan if they promised faithfully not to use the torture evidence. He went, the Jordanian court found him not guilty in June 2014, and released him... There is always "colateral" however certain individuals should have been thrown out years ago, and if they get tortured back in their country of origin, what a shame. And that's a very short step to "extraordinary rendition". I was actually referring to Hamza although I had forgotten about Abu Qatada and yes, extradited rather than deported.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jun 6, 2017 15:55:25 GMT
Although I agree with your comment on political correctness I noticed that like a lot of people (including myself), you did a last second swerve around the M word and called it "a certain religion". It would appear that although PC is universally derided it is now firmly embedded in our psyche. Well yes, that's true. I was playing safe with the mods as, without checking, I seem to recall that I had a minor caution over this in the past!
|
|
|
|
Post by nanniema on Jun 6, 2017 15:58:29 GMT
I thought it sounded strange from a plain speaking Yorkshire man.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jun 6, 2017 16:11:18 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 6, 2017 16:19:46 GMT
A Breitbart story, re-told by a site funded by Arron Banks and co-owned with Farage's former press secretary - I think we'll reserve judgement until we know for sure if it actually happened, eh? If anything did, then you can bet it's not quite as being told there...
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jun 6, 2017 16:21:48 GMT
A Breitbart story, re-told by a site funded by Arron Banks and co-owned with Farage's former press secretary - I think we'll reserve judgement until we know for sure if it actually happened, eh? If anything did, then you can bet it's not quite as being told there... Either way, Breitbart is an excellent counterfoil to Momentum? 
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 6, 2017 16:25:36 GMT
A Breitbart story, re-told by a site funded by Arron Banks and co-owned with Farage's former press secretary - I think we'll reserve judgement until we know for sure if it actually happened, eh? If anything did, then you can bet it's not quite as being told there... Either way, Breitbart is an excellent counterfoil to Momentum? It's about as reliable a source as the Canary, that's for sure. Blimey, I'd even take the Mail at face value in comparison to either...
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jun 6, 2017 16:28:39 GMT
Either way, Breitbart is an excellent counterfoil to Momentum? It's about as reliable a source as the Canary, that's for sure. Blimey, I'd even take the Mail at face value in comparison to either... Methinks ALL parties and politicians are pants. And I use "pants" for something far more vulgar.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jun 6, 2017 16:34:07 GMT
A Breitbart story, re-told by a site funded by Arron Banks and co-owned with Farage's former press secretary - I think we'll reserve judgement until we know for sure if it actually happened, eh? If anything did, then you can bet it's not quite as being told there... I wasn’t taking it as gospel truth and just to make it clear, whilst I’ve voted UKIP in European elections in the past I’m not a supporter mainly due to their amateurish handling of just about everything. For example, two days before the election and I’ve had to check if they’re even fielding a candidate locally (they are) as we haven’t had any communication from them, not even had a leaflet through the mail which even the Independent candidate managed!
|
|
