MAY we be seeing the next Thatcher?

[Unkotare]

...
There is this thing called "innocent until proven guilty" - I believe that you have it in the states.

You seemed very quick to condemn your fellow subjects as "guilty" of all manner of things when they voted in a way you didn't like.

 

[Phoenall]

I will be very disappointed to learn that she is against human rights. She actively supported Cameron's effort in going after British elites who were into pedophilia. Some of those elites belonged to her own party.

Her problems with human rights came after repeated botched attempts to deport suspected terrorists to countries that practice torture. The European Convention, quite rightly, does not allow that and she got slapped around by m'learned friends on numerous occasions.
I believe she has called time on that for the present.

It is worrying when politicians try to strip away our rights, even if ,ostensibly, for the right reason.

I wouldnt like to be deported to a country that tortures prisoners and I dont see why anybody else should either.

I agree. It is not a right policy to deport people to countries where they may face torture.

People dont get that. They look at an alleged criminal and think ,yeah who cares what happens to him. They forget that it could happen to them.

Only under a neo marxist or islamonazi government as they are the most likely to practise torture. But the majority of the criminals she tried to deport came from EU nations that dont have torture, and the EH courts told her that they had human rights to stay and live here. Like the European found guilt of ABH, GBH and Assault on his Brirish wife and children because he had a family life, even though his "family" are living in fear of him and cost the country vast sums of money to relocate and protect from his violence.

Once convicted a criminal should lose the same human rights he took away from his/her victim, then the human rights laws will work as they are meant to.

Um, they arent criminals until they are convicted. Thats pretty basic in a democracy.

Neo marxists dont believe in democracy once they have total control of the country, and that was only one more parliament away with Brown in charge.

 

[Phoenall]

...
There is this thing called "innocent until proven guilty" - I believe that you have it in the states.

You seemed very quick to condemn your fellow subjects as "guilty" of all manner of things when they voted in a way you didn't like.

Like all neo marxists he only wants democracy when it works in their favour. With the referendum he wants a re-run until he gets the vote he wants, then he will complain over how much the LEAVE majority have cost the country.

 

[Vikrant]

Her problems with human rights came after repeated botched attempts to deport suspected terrorists to countries that practice torture. The European Convention, quite rightly, does not allow that and she got slapped around by m'learned friends on numerous occasions.
I believe she has called time on that for the present.

It is worrying when politicians try to strip away our rights, even if ,ostensibly, for the right reason.

I wouldnt like to be deported to a country that tortures prisoners and I dont see why anybody else should either.

I agree. It is not a right policy to deport people to countries where they may face torture.

People dont get that. They look at an alleged criminal and think ,yeah who cares what happens to him. They forget that it could happen to them.

Only under a neo marxist or islamonazi government as they are the most likely to practise torture. But the majority of the criminals she tried to deport came from EU nations that dont have torture, and the EH courts told her that they had human rights to stay and live here. Like the European found guilt of ABH, GBH and Assault on his Brirish wife and children because he had a family life, even though his "family" are living in fear of him and cost the country vast sums of money to relocate and protect from his violence.

Once convicted a criminal should lose the same human rights he took away from his/her victim, then the human rights laws will work as they are meant to.

Um, they arent criminals until they are convicted. .....

Or unless someone doesn't vote the way YOU want, right?

They should not be deported to countries where they may face torture or death penalty even if they are criminals.

 

[Phoenall]

I agree. It is not a right policy to deport people to countries where they may face torture.

People dont get that. They look at an alleged criminal and think ,yeah who cares what happens to him. They forget that it could happen to them.

Only under a neo marxist or islamonazi government as they are the most likely to practise torture. But the majority of the criminals she tried to deport came from EU nations that dont have torture, and the EH courts told her that they had human rights to stay and live here. Like the European found guilt of ABH, GBH and Assault on his Brirish wife and children because he had a family life, even though his "family" are living in fear of him and cost the country vast sums of money to relocate and protect from his violence.

Once convicted a criminal should lose the same human rights he took away from his/her victim, then the human rights laws will work as they are meant to.

Um, they arent criminals until they are convicted. .....

Or unless someone doesn't vote the way YOU want, right?

They should not be deported to countries where they may face torture or death penalty even if they are criminals.

They should have known they faced deportation for their crimes and that should have been the best deterent. Seeing as they know they can get round the law by claiming human rights then human rights laws have failed those who need them the most. A criminal rapes your daughter and he will go free because of his human rights, your daughter suffers for the rest of her life. Where has your daughters human rights gone protecting an offender who will repeat his crime again

 

[Tommy Tainant]

People dont get that. They look at an alleged criminal and think ,yeah who cares what happens to him. They forget that it could happen to them.

Only under a neo marxist or islamonazi government as they are the most likely to practise torture. But the majority of the criminals she tried to deport came from EU nations that dont have torture, and the EH courts told her that they had human rights to stay and live here. Like the European found guilt of ABH, GBH and Assault on his Brirish wife and children because he had a family life, even though his "family" are living in fear of him and cost the country vast sums of money to relocate and protect from his violence.

Once convicted a criminal should lose the same human rights he took away from his/her victim, then the human rights laws will work as they are meant to.

Um, they arent criminals until they are convicted. .....

Or unless someone doesn't vote the way YOU want, right?

They should not be deported to countries where they may face torture or death penalty even if they are criminals.

They should have known they faced deportation for their crimes and that should have been the best deterent. Seeing as they know they can get round the law by claiming human rights then human rights laws have failed those who need them the most. A criminal rapes your daughter and he will go free because of his human rights, your daughter suffers for the rest of her life. Where has your daughters human rights gone protecting an offender who will repeat his crime again

So you are happy to send innocent people to be tortured ?

 

[StLucieBengal]

How can she be trusted?

Should have been leadsom

 

[Phoenall]

Only under a neo marxist or islamonazi government as they are the most likely to practise torture. But the majority of the criminals she tried to deport came from EU nations that dont have torture, and the EH courts told her that they had human rights to stay and live here. Like the European found guilt of ABH, GBH and Assault on his Brirish wife and children because he had a family life, even though his "family" are living in fear of him and cost the country vast sums of money to relocate and protect from his violence.

Once convicted a criminal should lose the same human rights he took away from his/her victim, then the human rights laws will work as they are meant to.

Um, they arent criminals until they are convicted. .....

Or unless someone doesn't vote the way YOU want, right?

They should not be deported to countries where they may face torture or death penalty even if they are criminals.

They should have known they faced deportation for their crimes and that should have been the best deterent. Seeing as they know they can get round the law by claiming human rights then human rights laws have failed those who need them the most. A criminal rapes your daughter and he will go free because of his human rights, your daughter suffers for the rest of her life. Where has your daughters human rights gone protecting an offender who will repeat his crime again

So you are happy to send innocent people to be tortured ?

The rapists and murderers may be innocent in your eyes, but to the majority they are guilty as charged and deserve all they get. Or did you fail to see that part in my post, once found guilty of the crime back home they go and suffer the consequences for their actions. Would make Britain a much safer place, decrease the prison population and put more housing on the market