vampir3uk wrote:

You do realise when a person is arrested as a suspected terrorists it is not simply a case of thinking somebody who is acting suspicious for a moment is a terrorist and arresting them. There is a massive amount of work that goes into following and gaining information on what these people are up to

Yes, which is slightly worse than being arrested, don't you think?

But yeah, the police don't just act on some suspicious behaviour. There's lots of work behind the scenes, following and gaining information on what these people are up to, right?

Boydy wrote:

Yes, which is slightly worse than being arrested, don't you think?

But yeah, the police don't just act on some suspicious behaviour. There's lots of work behind the scenes, following and gaining information on what these people are up to, right?

Considering the amount of people who have been convicted of terrorism in this country, yes there is a lot of work. Do try researching before you blurt out a load of bollocks next time cunt features.

I'm kinda with Vamp on this one. Like I seem to be with most crime related subjects lol.

If you kill someone without valid reason,rape,terrorise or are a paedophile etc. Fuck human rights. You do not deserve them. They made their choice and they deserve to rot.

Having said that I am more lenient with minor crimes. These small timers or whatever should have basic human rights but not as many libertys as they get now.

I also agree that Criminals seem to be more protected than Law abiding citizens.

DarkKnight. wrote:

I'm kinda with Vamp on this one. Like I seem to be with most crime related subjects lol.

If you kill someone without valid reason,rape,terrorise or are a paedophile etc. Fuck human rights. You do not deserve them. They made their choice and they deserve to rot.

Having said that I am more lenient with minor crimes. These small timers or whatever should have basic human rights but not as many libertys as they get now.

I also agree that Criminals seem to be more protected than Law abiding citizens.

i agree that this level of 'criminals' do not necessarily 'deserve' human rights and it wouldn't effect alot of peoples conscience if they were deprived of them. but theres a reason why they still have their human rights. i don't think it's as easy to say one type of person should n one type of person shouldn't have the rights. Where do u draw the line on which criminals do get human rights n which don't?

u could say a murderer should be deprived of his rights, yet a theif shouldn't as the crime is subjectively not as bad. but they are both crimianls at the end of the day? who decides what classification of criminals should or shouldn't loose their rights? if you only deprive murderers and rapists of their rights..what if this pattern continues and somebody decides all criminals should loose their rights? then petty criminals would lose theirs? where does this end? is there potential for abuse of power like there was with germany and the nazi's?

if you begin to deprive 'some' criminals of their rights..this could lead to long term problems for the state as a whole..where parliament can suddenly start taking rights from people here there and everywhere. there needs to be a consistant, equal treatment proceedure in place for 'everyone' surely? it needs to be tightly regulated.

as it stands, criminals do have their human rights still, and surely there is a reason for this, beyond the basic thinking of 'bad people shouldn't have human rights'.. because the implications then come in defining 'bad people' and 'criminals'. like i said in an earlier post, if parliament decided it was now a crime to practice christinaity, in literal terms, all christians would be regarded as criminals. so if you go with the argument, 'all criminals should lose their human rights' .. surely you are only giving amunition for parliament to abuse their status?

I didn't think it'd take long for this to descend to name-calling, insults and general picking apart of the wording used in points rather than the opinions themselves. Waste of time trying to discuss anything beyond sports and entertainment in this fucking hole.

FTR: People ACCUSED of crimes lose certain rights straight away. If a woman cries rape, there's usually a guy detained for a lengthy spell for some questions and bright lights. Anyone who thinks his rights and life aren't affected by this must have a very different outlook on the whole human rights deal.

jokay wrote:

how idiotic your first sentence is. so you think we, and the government shoudl sail through life living in the present and never looking at 'what if' scenario's? we should just base everything on what situation we are in now and not look into the future consequences of what our actions in the present might afford us in the future? thats ridiculous!

This country has enough problems without worrying about every what if scenario, what if a group of giant guinea pigs invaded the country after we kicked out all the Panamanian flute bands, what if spiders combined with mice in order to capture everybody in their webs with the ultimate goal of stealing cheese. There is nothing wrong with looking into the future at what might and might not happen but the ideas you came up with are red herrings you have brought up that are never going to happen in this country.

Quote:

and im not trying to make myself look intelligent (although, if i was, its alot more than you are doing..) .. you are basically looking at things through a black and white perspective. your looking at what, on the face of it, seems like the best solution, and the fairest, but you arn't looking at the potential long term effects and consequences of what would happen if your ideology was implemented. it seems like the most just resolution to just deprive 'criminals' of their human rights but you arn't looking at the long term effects this would have on the state if parliament exercised this amount of power now. it may seem like a good solution in the short term, but you arn't thinking of the long term constitutional effects.

Funnily enough we all know there are different circumstances for some crimes, such as a person defending himself and getting charged for assault. Yet another case of a victim getting prosecuted for refusing to cave in to the criminal element that is everywhere these days. The world is not always black and white, but funnily enough the most of the time it is. Stealing property to fund a disgusting drug habit, scum. Simple as.

Quote:

FTR: People ACCUSED of crimes lose certain rights straight away. If a woman cries rape, there's usually a guy detained for a lengthy spell for some questions and bright lights. Anyone who thinks his rights and life aren't affected by this must have a very different outlook on the whole human rights deal.

I've brought up rape laws before, one of the bizzare cases in this country where the accused has to prove himself innocent rather than be proved guilty. Then if the woman is found to have made the entire thing up rather then admit she was a cheating slut she gets a slap on the wrist and told she is a naughty girl.