Theresa May Says UK Will 'Tear Up' Human Rights Laws If Needed For Terror Fight (bbc.com)

Hours ahead of the UK general election, the prime minister and Conservative party leader Theresa May proposed to "tear up" human rights law which, she asserts, stops her government dealing effectively with terrorism. From a report: She said she wants to do more to restrict the freedom of those posing a threat and to deport foreign suspects. The UK could seek opt-outs from the European Convention on Human Rights, which it has abided by since 1953. Labour said the UK would not defeat terrorism "by ripping up basic rights." The Lib Dems said it was a "cynical" move ahead of Thursday's election. The Conservatives have faced criticism over police cuts and questions about intelligence failures following the terror attacks in London and Manchester. Her remarks come days after she expressed desires to assume more controls and regulation on the ways the internet works.

Comments

Of course

[Fire_Wraith]

Meanwhile, she couldn't be bothered to fund actual police and security services that could have potentially stopped the attackers in the first place, with information and methods they already had available to them.

The fact that she, as Home Secretary, gutted those services should be enough to tell you that she doesn't actually care about the problem, she's just using it as an excuse.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

What if she wants attacks to happen?

Re:Of course

[rogoshen1]

Sad to see our cousins across the pond aren't the only ones having to deal with this caliber of bullshit from their politicians.

Apparently living in a free society does have certain unfortunate and tragic costs; but that doesn't mean you should cash in your chips and go full frontal Stasi.

What would Churchill say about this turn of events.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's a comfort to anybody in the UK, it's that they, with the exception of those unfortunates in Maidenhead (auspicious name that), can say, with all due seriousness, that they never voted for her.

Ok, ok, the members of the Conservative Party can't, but they're all unmitigated arse anyhow, making moot of any concerns on that point.

Re:Of course

[stdarg]

Where did this thought come from? More funding for the police could have stopped this attack how exactly? Their response time was pretty good. But "stopped the attackers" to me actually implies you think they could have prevented the attack.

You do realize that they knew about these guys right? May is absolutely right that they need to tone down some of the more retarded human rights protections that are getting in the way of deporting or at least jailing jihadis.

Re:Of course

[PmanAce]

fund actual police and security services that could have potentially stopped the attackers in the first place

Ahhh, always nice to treat the symptoms and not the cause.

Re:Of course

[elrous0]

Having more police wouldn't have helped if the police are powerless to arrest someone until they act, or even to deport a suspect if they're known to associate with terrorists and be sympathetic to them (as the three koran-thumpers in the last attack were).

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The party didn't vote for her either. She was appointed unopposed.

Re:Of course

[Applehu Akbar]

What would Churchill say about this turn of events.

Winston did have this to say about what his country finds itself up against:
http://thefederalistpapers.org...

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, it's all part of the Conservative agenda!

Don't worry, soon you'll be able to chose your own police force when they privatize that too!

Don't worry, they'll get around to it as soon as they've finished running schools and the NHS into the ground so that they can be bought up nice and cheap by the private sector to give you more choice and lower prices through competition just like they did the public transport system!

Re:Of course

[elrous0]

Exactly. More cops would have just been sitting around wishing they could arrest these wackjobs or even deport them.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

churchill would have tracked them all down and hung them....duh

Re:Of course

[Nidi62]

Having more police wouldn't have helped if the police are powerless to arrest someone until they act,

So....arrest them before they commit a criminal act? Do you have to be Muslim for that to be ok? Or can the police arrest a guy standing outside a bank because they think he might be about to rob it, too?

or even to deport a suspect if they're known to associate with terrorists and be sympathetic to them (as the three koran-thumpers in the last attack were)

So it's now illegal to be around people that might be terrorists or to sympathize with them (but not in any way help them)? Tell me, are you trying to fight ISIS, or become them?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

It's rather simple really. More officers means more manpower to investigate and look into things. Less manpower means more choices need to be made about what is or isn't important. The more that you have to go "eh, we don't really have the time to look at this, it's probably nothing" the more likely it is you may miss something that could otherwise have been caught.

Instead, May's view was that they should learn to do more with less.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

Re:Of course

[elrous0]

Those three suspects WERE investigated and "looked into." What good does that do when you don't have the authority to arrest or deport them until they've actually committed an act of terrorism? It's not a crime to associate with terrorists, or be a terrorist sympathizer, or to espouse terrorist ideology. So what were these extra cops going to be able to do after their big investigation besides shrug their shoulders?

Even if you doubled the number of cops, you wouldn't be able to keep every suspected terrorist under surveillance 24/7. And since current human rights laws prevent you from even deporting them, much less imprisoning them, how would having more cops have helped?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

living in a free society means living in a society free from islam

Re:Of course

[mea2214]

What would Churchill say about this turn of events.

Be afraid.

Run for your lives!

Re:Of course

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Of course she wants them to happen. How else would you shake up a country to push for otherwise unpopular changes?

Re:Of course

[Nidi62]

This is unlike nazism - where the undesireables didn't get the option to leave in peace - they were killed off deliberately.

They didn't huh? And they only started deliberately killing them after the Battle of Britain prevented Germany from deporting millions of Jews to Madagascar .

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize what you're advocating is a guilty-without-trial option, right? It's incredibly dangerous what you're suggesting.

In the US, the Trump has tweeted this gem: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/23/04/2EB78B4000000578-3329934-image-m-46_1448254316150.jpg that has been circulating around the social media by ostensibly white right wing christians. It's wrong and the "source" doesn't exist.

So should you deport all black people?

(In 2013, the real numbers are: http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Offenders-Victims-Simpson-Black-Criminals-White-Victims-and-White-Guilt-1024x600.jpg , which makes a bit more sense -- people who generally hang around each other kill each other more.)

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Because why would we need to dismiss human rights and internet privacy if there aren't attacks?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have a free society without freedom of religion. People have a right to believe in fairy tails and talk and sing to an imaginary creature, however silly and pointless that may sound to people who are not religious.

Re:Of course

[elrous0]

You do realize what you're advocating is a guilty-without-trial option, right?

No, I'm advocating for a country's right to rescind the invitation for an immigrant to stay.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

So you acknowledge that some of these people were brought to the attention of the authorities prior to the attack yet you have no idea how more funding might have helped prevent the attacks? Are you fucking stupid or simply trying to mislead people?

There are only a certain number of individuals that can be monitored by law enforcement at any given time. With more resources come greater ability to keep track of potentially dangerous individuals. I fell like this is so obvious that there should not be a need to point this out.

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

You can't have a free society without freedom FROM religion.
Simply look at the loss of freedom in Poland after the fall of Communism
The Catholic church has turned women into brood cows.

Re:Of course

[PolygamousRanchKid]

What would Churchill say about this turn of events?

"The only thing we have to fear . . . is Theresa May herself!"

. . . then, he'd light up a Partagas Lusitania . . . and, with apologies to "The Cramps", bellow out a round of:

Well, come on little mama, let's tear this damn place up.
Come on little mama, let's tear this damn place up.
Come on little mama, let me see you do your stuff.

Tear it up, up-up-up-up
Tear it up, up-up-up-up
Tear it up
Tear it up
Come on little mama, tear this damn place up.

Yeah, move back baby, turn my way
Turn around again and let me hear ya say
Tear it up!
Tear it up!
Come on little mama, and tear this damn place up.

Whaaaaaow!
I'm a-leavin', little mama, gonna be gone a long, long time
I'm a-leavin', little mama, gonna be gone a long, long time
Come on, little mama, let me show you a real good time.

Whaaaaaow!
Tear it up, up-up-up-up
Tear it up, up-up-up-up
Tear it up
Tear it up
Come on little mama, tear this damn place up.

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

Wait, wait,
The FEDERALIST magazine and alt-right bullshit site is your SOURCE?
no wonder Trumpies are fools!!

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

These people probably think killing more people with drones in the Middle East would help too. Let's address discontent in the Muslim community by harshly targeting all of them. That should help calm down relations right?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course she wants them to happen. How else would you shake up a country to push for otherwise unpopular changes?

Talk about a "Wag The Dog" scenario... which is a positively callous and despicable action by an elected official.

Re:Of course

[Plus1Entropy]

"Not to be confused with Nazism" isn't a great way to frame an argument.

Re:Of course

[GLMDesigns]

What?

Alt-Right? If by Alt-Right you mean Spencer and his band of idiotic misfits then you just lumped in Libertarians (Cato, von Mises, Federalist ) in with white nationalists.

You don't like free-market philosophy? Fine. Not in favor of limited government? OK. Persuade people that your economic and regulatory model is superior. But Spencer and his band are not for the free market and The Federalist and other Free Market organizations are not in favor of the almighty state (whether distributionalist or racist in spirit ).

And, if you can't even read, or accept arguments made by people with an opposing point of view - well then. What does that say about you?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read those two links? The Office for Jewish Emigration (first link) seems simply a front to steal the remaining belongings from Jews before they were murdered. From the link:

he comes out at the other end, he has no money, he has no rights, only a passport in which is written: You must leave this country within two weeks; if you fail to do so, you will go to a concentration camp.[1]

The Madagascar plan was no better- it was a plan to kill Jews in Madagascar instead of in Europe. From the second link:

They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented.[4],

Again, this would be after all the possessions and money of the Jews were stolen, which was explicitly part of the plan.

Also a lie that murders of Jews didn't start until after the Battle of Britain- again in your article it mentions violence started in 1933. If that's not enough, Kristallnacht (1938) was two years before the Battle of Britain (1940).

The actual Nazis never lied about their crimes to try and minimize them, why are you?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

1- it's not a free society if someone tells you what to do
2- democracy cannot be a free society as the majority imposes on the minority
3- the entire point of this is for us to realize we don't need someone to tell us what to do, we don't need politicians
4- it will still happen until we stop empowering politicians and "authority" to someone else.

Re:Of course

[Terwin]

You can't have a free society without freedom of religion. People have a right to believe in fairy tails and talk and sing to an imaginary creature, however silly and pointless that may sound to people who are not religious.

I believe they were providing an indirect quote of Churchill in answer to the poster that asked what Churchill would say:
(from http://thefederalistpapers.org... )
Churchill: [...]"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."[...]

While I agree that freedom of belief and religion are essential to a free society, I do not know how the practice of a religion that mandates ownership of other adult humans can be tolerated within such a society.

You would think that if this was and is the case, that it would have received more mention in discussions about Islam.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have a free society without freedom FROM religion.

Freedom of religion already requires freedom from religion. After all, in order for you to be able to practice your freedom of religion, you must also be free from my religion forcing itself upon you.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm advocating for a country's right to rescind the invitation for an immigrant to stay.

The UK already has that right, it's called a Deportation Order:

Under UK immigration law a deportation order can be used to remove a foreign national from the UK. A deportation order requires you to leave the United Kingdom and authorises your detention until you are removed by a notice for deportation. It also has the power to stop you from re-entering the country for as long as the deportation order is in force and invalidates any leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.

Of course, the shrill "tear up Evil Human Rights" crowd (who don't recognise the irony) don't actually bother to check the law, and just believe whatever lies they're told to justify the removal of their rights.

Re:Of course

[AmiMoJo]

Actually, in the UK being associated with terrorists is often a crime. You are legally required to snitch on them.

Also, there are various things like Control Orders that they can use to control and restrict people without even convicting them.

The problem appears to be that they don't have enough people or resources to handle the volume of work.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Google "Operation Gladio" and "strategy of tension" and understand that both the CIA and MI6 were involved in these false flag terror plots in the Euro-zone during the cold-war to inflate "the communist threat". Consider that evidence related to these attacks have gone missing in subsequent decades and you will know that some of the same players that were active at that point are still at work. . . although the boogey-man has changed.

Re:Of course

[Calydor]

Both yes and no.

First of all, religion is like a penis. It's fine that you have one, it's fine that you're proud of it - but don't start showing it off in public.

Second of all, religion is ... well, it's basically insanity. Imagine that I stood up in public and declared that I found it justified to murder anyone who prefers Star Wars over Star Trek, or Lord of the Rings over Harry Potter. I'd be hauled off to jail and/or a psychiatric evaluation before my second breath.

Imagine I said that my invisible friend tells me to cut off a piece of my newborn child because it says so in the Silmarillion. That child would be taken away by Child Protective Services.

Imagine I pointed to Jabba the Hutt's slave girls and said THIS is proof that a man has a right to own his wife as if she was property.

But ... Point instead to a bunch of stories told by illiterate goat shepherds thousands of years ago, and suddenly it is religion and protected. Not just islam, but all of religion. Christianity doesn't get a free pass on this one.

Religion is pure and simple collective insanity. Religious wars are akin to a toddler tantrum over WHOSE invisible friend is the BEST (only) invisible friend.

Freedom of religion should extend to within your own four walls, not a step beyond them. In the public space it should be freedom FROM religion.

Re:Of course

[tlhIngan]

Apparently living in a free society does have certain unfortunate and tragic costs; but that doesn't mean you should cash in your chips and go full frontal Stasi.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" is the phrase. Freedom isn't free (beer) but it requires vigilance to protect it against those who seek to take it away. Which include those people jealous of freedoms enjoyed by others and wish to take it away (your traditional terrorist), as well as those who seek to remove the freedoms in order to "protect" (government for example, wishing to take away human rights). And while it may seem they're two different groups of people, they're really after the same goal. And then there's those who wish to use the freedom granted them to take away other's freedoms (e.g., racists) who often cloak their activities as granted by freedom.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, they voted for her, there were two rounds, then the last opponent withdrew as a show of unity.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why Islam shouldn't be allowed.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that they knew about these guys right? May is absolutely right that they need to tone down some of the more retarded human rights protections that are getting in the way of deporting or at least jailing jihadis.

Sure, the suggestions I've heard for that often goes along the lines of letting law enforcement do whatever they like without providing proof.
You see, if you can prove that someone is conspiring to murder then there are already laws that makes it possible to throw someone in jail.
The reason the police already knew about these guys is that they are doing mass surveillance. They know a lot of stuff about everyone, even those who aren't criminals.
In fact, they have so much information that terrorists like these disappears in the noise. It's only after they did something that law enforcement decided to dig deeper into the information they gathered and realized what happened.

Re:Of course

[mark-t]

Second of all, religion is ... well, it's basically insanity. Imagine that I stood up in public and declared that I found it justified to murder anyone who prefers Star Wars over Star Trek, or Lord of the Rings over Harry Potter. I'd be hauled off to jail and/or a psychiatric evaluation before my second breath.

No, in fact you would not.... at least not in any society that actually practices religious freedom. Instead, you would likely only be ignored by people who didn't want to listen. Law enforcement would only get involved if you were giving the impression that you were intending to actually carry out said homicide, and not simply ranting like a loon.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

BTFO!

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Then she's doing a good job.

Re:Of course

[Archangel Michael]

Free society means having the ability to have free thought and free will. To turn an Atheist argument, Atheistic states banning religions are exactly the same as religious totalitarian states that ban all but one, just one more. And I would suggest to you, that individual freedom hurts far less than elite thinking statism does ;)

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, as you said the suspects were investigated and "looked into".
All that investigation and "looking into" turned up jack shit so they were let go.

You aren't arguing for throwing out a single terrorist, you are arguing for throwing out everyone, guilty or not.

Re:Of course

[Calydor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

But somehow religious preachers seem to be exempt from those laws.

Re:Of course

[sycodon]

"Human Rights" in Europe are pretty much terrorists rights.

For instance, anyone leaving Europe to go fight on the side of ISIS should not be allowed to come back, but the Human Rights Commission in Europe wouldn't allow that.

Re:Of course

[Archangel Michael]

If Freedom of Religion means Freedom "From" Religion, then by that same logic ...

Freedom of Speech means Freedom "From" Speech, so shut up and don't speak.

And I would suggest to you that Statism is far more deadly than all religions (including Islam) combined. In fact, you are more likely to die by your own government than by all religions combined. Yes, some states are currently safer than others, but the all-powerful state is the most dangerous "religion" in the world.

Re:Of course

[rogoshen1]

I had no idea he said that.. To be clear I was referring to Churchill's stoicism during the Blitz -- aka 'a stiff upper lip'

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians are Republicans who have a little bit of a soul left, so they know they are doing wrong, but still value their own desires above others so excuse those actions.

Re:Of course

[Fire_Wraith]

Which brings it full circle, but also to a point that I failed to add originally.

That is, they don't have Control Orders anymore, not since 2011. They were scrapped and replaced by T-Pims (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures), which was claimed to be "more flexible" but in practice was heavily watered down.

Guess whose idea that was? Then-Home Secretary Theresa May.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-122...

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were illiterate then explain the Dead Sea scrolls. Insulting people you don't agree with using your own ignorance works to discredit everything else you say. In the future try to be more respectful and people may consider what you're saying. As it is you come off as rude, ignorant and quite distasteful.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? The attackers were stopped in less than ten minutes. What do you want to see happen in these situations?

Three people, with planning, attacked a densely-populated soft target and caused eight, count them, eight deaths. In terms of return on investment, that's beyond pathetic. Heck, one guy alone - with no apparent planning - killed 4 people in Westminster earlier this year. In Nice, one guy killed over 80.

Meanwhile, in America, over 20 people have died in mass shootings so far this month.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't drop out in your Sophomore year (next year)

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam should be allowed. However, muslins should not be allowed to indoctrinate their children. And certainly not allowed to mutilate their childrens' genitals. Let their children become westernized. Give them broadband, and accessâ to porn when they reach puberty. Make sure they have access to heretical Islam like the sufis. Enforce their right to leave Islam if they choose not to follow it.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, in America, over 20 people have died in mass shootings so far this month.

Accidentally, or on purpose? They didn't just tread on some spare guns that were laying around?

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. I'm sure with headlines like the following

.

Conservative Gay Group Banned From Pride Parade By ‘Tolerant’ Leftists

Dumbest Liberal Tweet on Terror EVER Gets DESTROYED

Psychologist PERFECTLY Describes ‘The Victim’ Personality Of The Left

.

Yeah. Okay. "The federalist papers" is a completely academic and informative organizations of rational libertarians.

This is called "being highly disingenuous."

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

He also rips christians in that quote too. It looks like he just wasn't very fond of religions in general.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Conspiracy to commit a crime is committing a crime. Identify where they are planning activities, identify them, then boot them out or imprison them. The West is in a state of war with ISIS. Not with muslims in general.

Re:Of course

[drinkypoo]

What would Churchill say about this turn of events.

What are we fighting for?

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

"were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science"

LOL, Churchill was a great man but he did write some hyperbolic bollocks.

Re:Of course

[William Baric]

I have no clue what "The Federalist" is, but I looked at the article, and what is said in this article is true. What Churchill thought of Islam is certainly no secret. One thing is for sure, when the only thing you can do against an idea is to criticize the one who express that idea, it shows that the person you criticize is right and that you are wrong.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

He's right on target with that, though. I suspect you just didn't understand the quote.

It happened to be that christianity was (and is) centered primarily in the area of the world also most technologically advanced. Were that not the case, the balance and geography of religious influence would look quite a bit different.

As he adds in the same quote there, it was this *in spite of* christianity being there, not because of it.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

"MI5 can monitor fewer than 50 terrorist suspects around the clock, it can be disclosed..." assume that there are 500 or 600 violent extremists and that it takes 20-25 people to keep somebody under surveillance 24/7"
“All the others, you have to ... constantly you have to decide who is really dangerous, who is less dangerous and who is perhaps not even dangerous at all. And inevitably mistakes are being made"
"How many with links to Islamists are there? There are 3,000 people on MI5’s watch list, with 20,000 suspects ‘known’ to them, with 500 active investigations under way. this stands against 50ish people they were watching in the IRA era and 250 suspected Islamists before the 9/11 attacks. The figure has been stagnant at 3,000 ...because there’s a limit to how many people 4,000 MI5 staff can keep an eye on."

Re:Of course

[William Baric]

European countries are notorious for not allowing freedom of thoughts if those thoughts are deemed to be dangerous to society. Also, some religious sects are banned in Europe. So I don't see why Islam, which can arguably be considered dangerous to Western societies, and which certainly still has sectarian practices, could not be banned.

Re:Of course

[liquid_schwartz]

I think Alt-Right means anything that isn't 100% politically correct and supported by the complete staff of the HuffPost. Not unlike the comedian who joked about being asked if he's ever used drugs like cocaine, crack, or caffeine.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You-know-who's already doing that.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Both yes and no.

First of all, religion is like a penis. It's fine that you have one, it's fine that you're proud of it - but don't start showing it off in public.

To take it a step further: And just like a penis, if you go around showing it to kids, even your own kids, you're going to jail for child abuse.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

fine, but the same goes for christians sending their kids to bible camp and religious schools.

Re:Of course

[JSG]

>> What would Churchill say about this turn of events.

> Winston did have this to say about what his country finds itself up against

I prefer to think that he would deliver a speech more like this:

https://www.winstonchurchill.o...

Skip through to the last para at the bottom, it's quite a long speech being a report back to the House of Commons. The final line includes the phrase "New World" - that's the US and thankfully they did pile on in because we were pretty close to fucked. It is a speech that virtually any Brit would recognise.

The stuff quoted by the Federalist is a bit disingenuous: channelling someone who many in the New World (hah) also regard as a great leader and fixating on some of his ideas that no longer resonate with the vast majority of people who regard liberty and freedom of speech amongst other inalienable rights as paramount to an ordered and civilized society.

Re:Of course

[Darinbob]

That article and the links to other articles on the page were not libertarian, there were full onset wingnut crazy. A real libertarian would believe in religious liberties. A libertarian also would not be buying into conspiracy theories.

Libertarian: climate change may be real, but I don't approve of big government programs to combat it.
Wingnut: government is setting up a program to combat climate change, therefore climate change is a plot!

Re:Of course

[rtb61]

So I guess you are not buying into the whole "you need to become terrorists to defeat terrorists" thing. Especially when the government is not targeting their terrorism at the terrorist but at the terrorists victims. In order to make you safe, we need to terrorise you before the terrorists do, now that is a hard sell. The tories seem to have gone full blown nuts.

Re:Of course

[KGIII]

I hold and offer no opinions on this matter, in specific. Please understand that and understand that I am only going to say something pithy and nearly pointless - unless you want to think about it deeper.

Very, very few things are simple. Chances are, if you think there's a simple answer to complex problems (such as those involving humans), you're wrong. Chances are, you're not just wrong - you're not engaging in critical thinking.

There's a chance you're right. There's a chance that the answer to this is simple. There's the chance that this can be summed up in a one line bit of legislation and a few bumper stickers. However, that's exceedingly unlikely. Offering no other opinion than that, I'd suggest you re-evaluate and seek more details/data.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

"Our story begins, as these stories often do with a young, up-and-coming politician. He's a deeply religious man and a member of the Conservative Party. He's completely single-minded and has no regard for the political process. The more "power he attains, the more obvious his zealotry, and the more aggressive his supporters become. Eventually, his party launches a special project in the name of national security. ...
A year later, several extremists are tried, found guilty and executed, while a memorial is built to canonize their victims. But the end result, the true genius of the plan, was the fear. Fear became the ultimate tool of this government. Through it, our politician was ultimately appointed... to the newly created position of high chancellor."

Re:Of course

[MoaDweeb]

Pedant ON.

Hanged them

Pedant OFF.

Meat is hung, people are hanged.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam is a "Statist" religion. Islam demands that it be in control of government and that it govern all lives. Period.

You can have Statism without Islam, but you can not have Islam without Statism.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, anyone leaving Europe to go fight on the side of ISIS should not be allowed to come back, but the Human Rights Commission in Europe wouldn't allow that.

You do know they are being arrested at return or before they even manage to go anywhere, if possible?

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to disappoint you but I got 2 Bachelor's already.

Re:Of course

[unixisc]

Meanwhile, she couldn't be bothered to fund actual police and security services that could have potentially stopped the attackers in the first place, with information and methods they already had available to them. The fact that she, as Home Secretary, gutted those services should be enough to tell you that she doesn't actually care about the problem, she's just using it as an excuse.

Aside from that, the fact that after 6 years as both Home Secretary and then Prime Minister, all of this just grew makes it clear that she's a pathetic choice to lead the UK. Except that Jeremy Corbin is another Bernie, and I hate the idea of Sadiq Khan becoming any more powerful than he already is. He is more of a Jihadist than even some of the specimens residing in Doha.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently living in a free society does have certain unfortunate and tragic costs; but that doesn't mean you should cash in your chips and go full frontal Stasi.

No, that's when you go water the tree of liberty. If that buffoon is seriously considering using the power of her office to promote the destruction of human rights, then she should be considered an imminent lethal threat to society and dealt with as such.

There is a fine line that must be drawn and held at all costs against those who would seek to destroy the basic foundations of democracy, if that democracy is to survive. This idiot has clearly attempted to cross it.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Churchill was a great man? Brainwashing at its finest.

Churchill was an utter asshole who got it right *once*. Most things he was involved in prior to 1940 and after 1945 have turned to sh*t (or worse).

Only Britons living in LaLaLand could be still enamored with WC.

Re: Of course

[Dog-Cow]

Neither of which was in English, apparently.

Re:Of course

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

If Freedom of Religion means Freedom "From" Religion, then by that same logic ...

Freedom of Speech means Freedom "From" Speech, so shut up and don't speak.

Yes, and this is why the 5th Amendment exists. You have the right to shut the fuck up, and I wish dunderheads like you would exercise that right more often.

Freedom of religion DOES mean freedom from religion, but with a name like yours it's painfully obvious why this idea gets your panties in a twist.

Re:Of course

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

What are we fighting for?

"What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die!"

Country Joe And The Fish - Vietnam Song

Re:Of course

[GLMDesigns]

OK.

I didn't go to the article. I'm sure that must come as a surprise. :)

Re:Of course

[Hognoxious]

Pendant ON.

Are they hung or hanged?

Re:Of course

[reboot246]

While I agree with much of what libertarians believe in, if they were in power they would bring about the end of Western civilization. I'm not so trusting of some religions that I would not strive to eliminate them.

Re:Of course

[drinkypoo]

You can't have a free society without freedom FROM religion.

You can't even have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion!

Re:Of course

[RockDoctor]

Mirriam-Webster (who I think are an American dictionary, but I'm not sure that it matters for this one) says that it doesn't really matter. It's a popular, but not well-founded distinction.

TBH, I'd thought the only used for "hanged" was for the judge's black cap condemnation : "you will be hanged by the neck until dead." But just to annoy people, I'll mix them about a bit more.

Re:Of course

[RockDoctor]

First of all, religion is like a penis. It's fine that you have one, it's fine that you're proud of it - but don't start showing it off in public.

Oh tempora, o mores!

In the public space it should be freedom FROM religion.

One minor extension - I'd only allow people to preach a religion to other people who have paid for being preached at with a credit card in their own name, after signing a detailed medical-style consent form for the potentially dangerous indoctrination you're wishing to receive. No exceptions.

Particularly no exceptions for children. Any children who receive religious indoctrination should be of sound mind, of their own responsibility, and of full adult status. If you're really keen to indoctrinate children - you might want a detailed bureaucratic process to allow for exceptions. A process that might take up to 20 years.

Re:Of course

[RockDoctor]

"Gone"? Oh, they haven't gone anywhere. They've been like that for decades, possibly centuries.

Re:Of course

[RockDoctor]

No, I'm advocating for a country's right to rescind the invitation for an immigrant to stay.

And for those terrorists who are born-and-bred citizens of the county. For example, in this case, the Northern Irish Unionist terrorists who're going into loose coalition with the self-emasculated Mrs May.

Re:Of course

[RockDoctor]

T-Pims (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures),

... of which there are currently 6 or 7 in force. Not one of which has been applied to any of the actual terrorists.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

With a name like that, I'd think that they'd be an Israeli dictionary ;)

Re:Of course

[Darinbob]

That's why I make a distinction between libertarians and the Libertarian Party.

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

Wrong
A free society is where one has the ability to execute free ACTIONS.
You ALWAYS have free thought, no matter how insane
This is why Poland was still Catholic despite 50 years of Communist hostility, and why they stole women's right to ACT once free!!
There is nothing in "individual freedom" that prohibits statism, as Trumpists demonstrate daily.

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

And in America, which is why the 1st Amendment was passed.
Yet, to this very day, fundamentalist Mormons are hunted by both state and church enforcers.
Given the Christian Church hostility to the 14th Amendment, your argument could easily mean the banning of all forms of Apostolic religion!

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

Well, by all means, look up "Federalist" at "Sourcewatch.net" for the details on this fraudulent site

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

False.
Federalist magazine is NOT the Federalist Society and IS on the public list of alt-right fake news lie sites as published by Snopes, Factcheck.org and Politifact.

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

I'll buy that.

Re:Of course

[WeezulDK]

I think for a lot of people, in that context, "hanged" is more of an action, where "hung" is descriptive of the action performed. I always think of hanged only in the sense that a person was hung (in a passive past tense) or hanged ( in an active past tense) by someone (including that very person). An object other than a living thing would be hung, not hanged. "The stockings were hung by the chimney with care..." But... this would be accurate in a sentence because it "sounds" right to the ear:

"Bob hanged himself out of sheer sadness over his lost love, but he only hung for a few moments before he realized he wanted to live, and struggled to free himself." The funny thing is that you could use hanged/hung in either spot, but you wouldn't want to use two hangeds or two hungs in one sentence.

Sometimes it's about what "sounds" right as well, ringing back to the "tick tock vs tock tick" rule about how things sound in English.

Re:Of course

[William Baric]

Again, the article cited from this site reported only verifiable facts, therefore the reputation of the site is completely irrelevant. People running this site could be pedophiles raping babies, it wouldn't change that what was said in this article was the truth.

Re:Of course

[William Baric]

I have no clue what you are trying to say. Your thoughts seem to be completely disorganized.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Unaga Soque
Let me ask you this. Do you think that the fact of us invading their country killing their women and children trying to force our way of life on them may result in them coming after us? What would you do if armed masked men nroke down your door and starting beating members of your own family?

Your link totally sucked. Attitudes like this get you attacked and show your lack of respect for other human beings. These are just lies to support their self-centered beliefs.

A quote from your link:

America’s Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, expressed an identical sentiment as Churchill later did, regarding the unjust and vile treatment of women by “the merciless Indian savages”:

The women are submitted to unjust drudgery. This I believe is the case with every barbarous people. With such, force is law. The stronger sex therefore imposes on the weaker. It is civilization alone which replaces women in the enjoyment of their natural equality. That first teaches us to subdue the selfish passions, and to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves. Were we in equal barbarism, our females would be equal drudges.

As one of these "merciless Indian savages" let me point out the lie in this quote. The treatment of women by Indians. In Indian culture the WOMEN own everything. The house, the crops in the field, women make the decisons for the tribe. When you get married you join the woman's clan (same as a last name). A man only owns his clothes, his pony, his tools and his weapons that's it. Sure women worked the fields they owned them. No how can you say a culture is gulit of unjust and vile treatment of women when they own everything and run everything?

Aren't we a barbarous people by raiding other countries to take their resources and kill women and children and attempt to force our way of life on them?

As a merciless Indian savage all I want is to live in peace and be left alone. I don't condem you for your beliefs so please give me the same respect. Really this is the same song and dance the US and other parts of the so called civilized world put on Indian people since they hit this shore and you still have figured out if you invade a people kill their families and steal thier shit they are going to fight back and kill you. Don't cry when bullets are flying around your head when YOU fired the FIRST shot.

Native America
Fighting Terrorism since 1492

Re:Of course

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Well that's Occam's razor well and truly debunked.

Re:Of course

[KGIII]

Pretty much. Occam's razor isn't as useful as many seem to think it is. Things are complicated. If they weren't complicated, we'd all be experts. Occam's razor has some uses, but it's really only applicable for a small number of problems.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is pure and simple collective insanity. Religious wars are akin to a toddler tantrum over WHOSE invisible friend is the BEST (only) invisible friend.

HERETIC!!!!

Now you must be thrown into the volcano. It's for the greater good.

(Decoder for those with broken irony detectors: Yes, I agree completely.)

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

and not simply ranting like a loon.

So, it seems that you do agree with the main jist of his post then (Religion is insanity). :-)

Good!

Re: Of course

[sydbarrett74]

The books of the Bible were passed down orally for centuries before anyone even thought to write them down.

Re:Of course

[sydbarrett74]

You're carrying the analogy just a tad far, there. I can't think of a single society in which it's a consensus or even majority position that teaching your children about religion is considered child abuse. Sure, you have people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, but those two are considered militant even by the standards of most atheists.

Re:Of course

[stoatwblr]

"More funding for the police could have stopped this attack how exactly? "

The people behind the attacks were reported to security services by _multiple_ people, including family members, imams and actual anti-terrorist researchers as unstable, espousing terrorism and likely to be dangerous.

Due to lack of resources the tip offs were not investigated correctly. Had they been, it's likely that the attacks would never have happened because the culprits would have been sitting in rubber rooms or otherwise diverted from their deadly paths.

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

Von Mises?
You're kidding right?
Did you note their solution to the 2007 crash?
TAX CUTS and SPENDING CUTS
Just like Spain and Greece and France
Who are still in recession
Total failures

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

Libertarian
One who believes the obvious fallacy that
1. The worst people acting for the WORST reason, will automatically do what is best for everyone and
2. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a stupid communist.
Both claims are false, as everything from Bohpal to Socialism in Germany prove.

Re:Of course

[RockDoctor]

ringing back to the "tick tock vs tock tick" rule about how things sound in English.

I've never heard of that rule. Can you elaborate? (I only did enough English Language at school to satisfy the university entrance requirements, and I just ignored English Lit classes. Did my physics homework in them mostly.)

Re:Of course

[GLMDesigns]

Disagree with policies fine. But it's not fascist. It's not authoritarian.

And you realize that the idea is this - the solution to living beyond your means and making promises that you cannot keep is

1. Live within your means.
2. Only make promises that you can keep.

Look at the goodies coming down the pike in California and elsewhere.

Politicians today promise a salary and a pension. Today's taxes pays the salary but not enough is put into the pension. In a few years the pension must be paid - and where does the money come from. Well raise taxes of course. Eventually this cycle breaks down.

The solution is - today's politicians (and tax payers) pay the salary and put enough for the pension. But we don't do that.

You disagree with me. Fine.
You think my ideas are foolish. Fine.

Calling me a fascist (when I'm not) is not fine.
Calling me a fascist and then saying "bash a fash." Not fine.

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

Once more, is there anything in fascism which is NOT Capitalism?
And is there anything in libertarianism, reflected in the failed Von Mises Austrian school of economics, which is NOT about providing for the inheriting few at the expense of the workers?
As you saw from 2008 - 2016, DEFICIT spending during a Capital Contraction ends the recession
Those states which do not do this, fail, as the now double-dip recession in Europe demonstrates

Re:Of course

[GLMDesigns]

Capitalism from a socialist definition is different than a free-market definition. A food-coop run by socialists is "free-market" in my perspective. Why? Because it isn't dictated from up high by the government.

Fascism is antithetical to free markets. Fascism is antithetical to individual liberty. Any and all libertarians and free market ideas are not fascism. If they promote a state run enterprise, forcing people to act according to state rules then that is not libertarian.

If socialists cared about what they were saying they would be working to get off the grid.

Join together (form a corporation - which means to make one body) and buy a building. Then another. Soon many people would be partially off the grid re housing. You'll need maintenance guys. Now those people would be even more off the grid as their homes and employers are off the grid. Join with food coops and farms (there are plenty) and now you will have housing, job and food off the grid. And so on ... and so on,

You can do it. It's called voluntary association. Instead you try to use force to make me join your collective. Now, instead of an ally you have an enemy.

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

All the usual mistakes.
1. Capitalism is not a free market
it is a market designed by inherited wealth holders to improve their wealth vis the common wheal.
you don't get the electric car with in-transit recharging, you get another ICE vehicle that wears out in 150K miles (Electrics from 1928 are still running)
2. A corporation does NOT serve the shareholders equally, thus weighted voting
3. Voluntary association which excludes portions of the public while exercising control over markets are UNconstitutional, Amendment 14, I don't think this needs illumination
Care to comment on the success of Keynsian deficit spending to recover from the "Free market" bundled debt catastrophe?
You and Von Mises are alike in dodging the questions that vitiate your claims

Re:Of course

[GLMDesigns]

Stop it.

There are different definitions of capitalism which is why we have to define our terms.

Bastiat, Menger, von Mises, Rand, Rothbard, Friedman have a different definition than does Marx, Lenin, Andre Gunder Frank, Wallarstein and other underdevelopment theorists.

You don't have THE definition of capitalism. You have a definition of capitalism. I'm certain that you would disagree with my definition of socialism. And I cannot disagree more with your definition of capitalism. Some points such as 2 and 3 are completely absurd to me.

As a free-market capitalist I define it as economic activity not directed by government agencies. We get gray areas as the economy is more and more regulated. We know we disagree, but if you want to have real discussions with people please don't think that your definition is the only one.

So questions for you:
if capitalism is not free market what do you call the unregulated exchange of goods and services?
At what point in regulation is it no longer a free-market?
When it crosses the boundary from free market what does it become.
What is the gray area between free market and completely regulated (whether fascist or socialist)?

Re:Of course

[AutodidactLabrat]

Of course there are several definitions
ALL of them include increasing capital for the Capitalists, 75% of whom in America are INHERITORS of significant wealth (2007, IRS digest)
So stop playing.
there are no free markets because CAPITALISM IS NEVER FREE OF CONTROL BY CAPITALISTS FOR CAPITALISTS
There is no "Unregulated" when the CAPITALISTS are regulating by controlling supply or manipulating demand
Now stfu if you can't argue the facts.

Re:Of course

[GLMDesigns]

I can argue facts.

What is wrong with inheriting wealth?
What is wrong with wealth?
It's not a zero-sum game so my wealth does not mean yo have less.

You never bothered answering the question of what is a free market and the transitions.

If I have a farm and sell you an apple and there is no restriction on the apple or the price then that transaction is part of the free market.

You can get yourself off the grid (buy buildings, trade with coops, etc.. as I mentioned) or you can try to take over by force.

Good luck with you take the later route.

For The Children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. I have nothing to hide.

USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

You are being manipulated to give up your essential freedoms. Statistically, terrorism is a tiny concern compared to the danger you submit yourself to daily.

Re: USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try Osama jr

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

More impotantly, Western people giving up their freedom is exactly what the terrorists want.

Re:USA and now UK

[elrous0]

That may be true. But in this case May is just looking for the ability to "deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries." That hardly seems unreasonable to me. If you immigrate to my country and start engaging in terrorist activity (or associating with known terrorists) your invitation to stay should be rescinded.

Re: USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Have those countries refused their ashes? Cos London and Manchester have refused to bury them.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be true. But in this case May is just looking for the ability to "deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries." That hardly seems unreasonable to me.

You seem to be using a definition of the word 'reasonable' I have not come across before. Deporting anyone on the basis of suspicions without a fair trial is, to me, by definition unreasonable.

Re:USA and now UK

[Holi]

Except, Salman Abedi was born in England, where are they going to deport him to?

Khuram Shahzad Butt, a 27-year-old British national born in Pakistan. Again a British national, how do you deport him?


I understand the feeling, but what you are supporting is a violation of due process, is Britain going to start a department of pre-crime. Where if they think you may commit an act they will arrest you? When we start punishing people for what they think instead of their actions, any pretense of a free society gets obliterated.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it easier if you and likeminded people simply move to North Korea? Then you get the totalitarian state you want and you don't harm the people who don't.

Re:USA and now UK

[squiggleslash]

No, she's looking for the ability to ban porn. That's what she does. She looks for excuses to increase powers, and then rather than using them for the purpose she claimed, she uses them to ban Internet porn instead.

UHCR or not, it's also pretty hard to deport British people, and the vast majority of terrorists (and presumably suspected terrorists) in Britain are British.

Britain has a long and ultimately successful history with fighting terrorism. May has been throwing out all the lessons learned over the past 50-60 years, and is intent on adopting populist measures that have a proven record of failure. She'll be bringing back internment next, which'll be just as successful as Gitmo or internment was in NI in the 1970s. ie very successful - if you're recruiting for a terrorist group.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Back to their home countries? So for all the latest terror attack in the UK, send them back to the London suburbs?

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

A better analogy would be China, which takes a VERY hardline approach to Muslim immigrants in particular and to Islam in general. They've also never had a single Muslim terrorist attack there, despite having a large native population of Muslims.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an alternative. Westerners don't need to give up their own freedom. They can discriminate, and give up the freedom of muslims.

Now, most muslims in western countries are nice enough. The problem is, that there are always some people who fail. They become poor loosers and perhaps a disgrace to their family. When this happens to a western man, he gets drunk and get into fights. Not nice, but life goes on precisely because nobody gets killed. He may get a second chance, or simply live out his life as a drunk failure. Annoying but not a killer.

When this happens to a muslim looser, chances are he gets in touch with some radical who offers a way out. After all, the Koran endorse jihad. If you're a total failure, the bomb belt is a final option. You get respect from the radicals, perhaps a monetary reward for your family, and if you believe - a place in paradise. and failures wants to believe.

And this is why it is such a problem to have muslims in a western country. The people who come here make a choice. They are rarely the problem. Mostly nice people. But if they, or their children fail - terror is always an option. Only a few take that option, but you can't know who does that in advance. And therefore it is better to be without people with such a 'culture'. Not as in "kill them all", but as in "send them to their own, their way of thinking does not work here. "

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

All three terrorists in the London Bridge attack were immigrants. Has there been another attack since then? I don't follow the news and Muslim terrorist attacks are happening so often in Europe these days that I can't even keep track anymore.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Khuram Shahzad Butt, a 27-year-old British national born in Pakistan. Again a British national, how do you deport him?
 

Not itself a problem - citizenship can be revoked. Norway revoked citizenship from people caught lying about their refugee status. Then they were expelled. Britain can do that too - if they want to.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

The funniest part is that a portion of the right wing jumped on Obama when he pointed out that no FORIEGN Illegal terrorist has attacked the US in almost a decade -- all of the terrorism that has happened in the US in the past 10 years or so has been from proper immigration for 5+ years or they were born in the US.

It's true, even if it doesn't fit into their neat little paradigm. None of them were refugees and non of them were the dirty drug dealing illegal mexicans

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's consistently the second-generation immigrants, the children of refugees, who wage jihad. Which is worrisome: we can, and should, cut off the faucet by accepting no more refugees (and why haven't we already done this?), but we still have another thirty years of attacks in the pipeline from those already here.

The immigration policies we set today will determine the course of terrorism in the 2040s.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you afraid they may one they become as common as school shootings in the US?

Re:USA and now UK

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, but where do you expel someone to when they were born in your country? The Norway thing is a little different: those people were immigrants, who were born elsewhere, and then became naturalized citizens. Presumably (I haven't read the specifics of that case, I'm just going on your writing here) they lied about something on their naturalization application, so the country was able to legally revoke their citizenship (because it was acquired under false pretenses), which means they just reverted back to being citizens of wherever they came from. Basically, Norway just hit the "undo" button.

With the naturalized guy born in Pakistan, sure, you can just revoke his citizenship and fly him back to Pakistan. But what about the ones that are born in Britain? They don't have a former home country other than Britain.

Maybe they could just send them to the Pitcairn Islands, which only have 49 inhabitants and have been seeking new residents.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to specify the terrorist in government, not those people living in the middle ages many thousand miles away.

Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Note it doesn't say they actually fly the airplane into the building.

Re: USA and now UK

[Opportunist]

They have no dump in Manchester and London?

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

> Western people giving up their freedom is exactly what the terrorists want.

Can you provide a citation for this?

Because I'm pretty sure they want us dead, and when they say that, they cite the relevant parts of their holy document. When they gloat about their victories, they discuss total deaths, expenses and treasure cost us, etc. They don't list "TSA now exists" or whatever in their promotional documents, but they DO list all their dead non-Muslims as a selling point and celebration measure.

So why do you think the terrorists care about our freedoms? They seem to exclusively care about costing us lives and property.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but they want them to give it up to Islamists, not to homegrown authoritarians. Going authoritarian is the nuclear option: it's a loss for us, but a loss for the terrorists, too.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

You can only revoke someone's citizenship if they have another citizenship to fall back on. If they've renounced their former citizenship (be it Pakistani, American or whatever), then it's illegal. (Also a violation of human rights as guaranteed by the UN, which insists that everyone is a citizen of at least one country. And obviously the UK government has no authority to confer citizenship of any country other than the UK.)

Re:USA and now UK

[yuriklastalov]

Oh absolutely. Who could have thought that bringing a bunch of immigrants in on the theory of "assimilation" then proceeding to teach their kids through the Marxist lens about "the evils of Whiteness and Western Civilization" would produce domestic terrorists? It's just soooooo crazy!

It's almost like someone wants this to happen. Or Leftists are too stupid and or crazy to realize what they were doing. Could go either way. Why is it that brain-sick Lefties bleat about "immigrants are fine, they'll assimilate" while simultaneously dismantling the very culture those immigrants are supposed to assimilate into? It's fucking mind boggling. Are you really thinking that the disaffected children of these immigrants are going to pick up your radical Marxist line? LOL, they'll just fall back into their own radical traditions and kill the weak and decadent bourgeoisie who seem hell bent on destroying themselves and taking the rest of us along with them.

Leftists are DUMB DUMB DUMB. So much needless death and suffering in their reckless pursuit of vainglory and virtue signaling.

Re: USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

There must be a slaughterhouse with a load of pig viscera to blend their remains into before disposing it all in a landfill somewhere far away from the populace.

Re:USA and now UK

[sabri]

Westerners don't need to give up their own freedom. They can discriminate, and give up the freedom of muslims.

Get on Netflix and watch Homecoming King by Hasan Minhaj.

Hasan Minhaj is a 1st gen American, who talks about his upbringing and the racism he faced. He has a very strong piece of what happened to his family after 9/11. Just watch it, and then rethink your comment.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

and this is why it is called: "Minority report".

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Australia might beat them to the punch: Tony Abbot (ex-Pm, now minister) mentions the possibility of "the creation of special courts that can hear evidence that may not normally be admissible".

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/35714792/abbott-wants-special-terror-courts/#page1

Re: USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

s/muslim/white/g

Re:USA and now UK

[William Baric]

Islam is not a race, it is a religion. More than that, it is a religion which now has a serious violence problem, and there's a moment when someone must be held responsible for choosing his religion. I won't forbid him to choose Islam, but I will certainly not pity him or defend him if he considers he's a victim of discrimination.

Re: USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

They're disaffected if anything by the racism they have experienced all their lives from fine upstanding white folks and then, not having any talent or purpose in life realising that the acquisitive, capitalist society into which they're ejected after school is empty and pointless. That's not sufficient to turn someone into a terrorist but it makes a lot more sense than blaming inclusive education or ridiculing the idea that different cultures can live together.

Re:USA and now UK

[AHuxley]

Accidents are not a "danger" that a large group of people are funding, supporting, conspiring to do and then do.
Terrorism is the product of a faith and that people can be stopped.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.K. P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act will save you from the terrorists...

It worked for us in the USA!

(Seriously, it was bad when we did it... please learn from our mistake!)

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, Salman Abedi was born in England, where are they going to deport him to?

Historically, Australia.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

"Western people giving up their freedom is exactly what the terrorists want."

This really isn't true, and this constant line isn't helping.

If you look into the stated motivations of many of the more recent terror attacks the motivations are much less cartoonish.
However if you really want to stop the root conditions of terrorism in the UK, you'd have to start paying a lot more attention to the actions of the UK military abroad, which provide all source material the terrorist propaganda campaigns require.

Re: USA and now UK

[Opportunist]

Why waste the pig intestines?

Re:USA and now UK

[balaband]

No, she's looking for the ability to ban porn..

I would argue that this would make people more likely to go on murderous rampage

Re:USA and now UK

[misexistentialist]

Guests have to be welcome. Strange that this is even an issue since the UK does not hesitate to ban white foreigners from even entering the country if they considered naughty let alone dangerous

Re:USA and now UK

[misexistentialist]

A lot of these guys would be happy to leave for Islamic countries, at least in the early stage of radicalization, so the Western countries should help them on the condition that they can never come back. Of course this makes globalists' Saudi Arabian and Israeli friends nervous so we do the reverse, spreading Muslim troublemakers into every town in Western countries

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell does Marx have anything to do with it? You sound like a loony.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

"But what about the ones that are born in Britain?" Zyclon B

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

It is one thing to teach that our culture has flaws and another to teach that it is evil.

For generations we have taught that we were perfect, it is reasonable to point out that mistakes were made.

Re: USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Abbott is just appealing to his right leaning base and saying silly things again. He got dumped from being pm for a reason. Btw, he's not a minister, he's been consigned to the back bench as a standard Member of Parliament. Now he just lobs stupid thought bubbles into the press to make life difficult for his replacement as pm.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

There are between 1.5 and 2 billion Muslims on the planet, out of 8 billion people. That's nearly one quarter of the planet.

If Islam actually had a serious violence problem, we'd be in the middle of WW3.

Your prejudice speaks volumes about your character.

Re:USA and now UK

[WeezulDK]

If one quarter of the people of the planet said "Galactic Overlord Xenu is real", would you believe them? What about if one quarter of the population of the world said there was a flying spaghetti monster in space? What gives the Abrahamic religions a pass? It is not wrong to point out who the enemy is. It is not racist, as Islam is a religious political ideology, and a dangerous one at that.

Q: Do you know the difference between a "religion" and a "cult"?
A: The number of followers.

It's not prejudicial to say that Islam does have a problem with violence, nor is it bigotry or racism, for that matter. It's just stating facts. And Islam is probably what will force the world into WW3. If you really want to get technical, the crusades were "world wars" in their own right, 25 retaliatory battles of Christian Europe pushing back the Islamic jihadists over a couple hundred years, compared to over 500 separate relentless Jihadi battles into Europe over the course of 1300 years? Please don't tell me that Jihad is not a thing, you'll be immediately be laughed at by everyone...

Religion is an mental illness taught to people (usually starting at childhood) for the purpose of control. The weak minded or those incapable of actual logical acceptance of their mortality (and reality) perpetuate this sickness/insanity throughout history. What's more is that it doesn't matter the faith, the "faithful" all have committed horrible crimes in the names of their gods, whomever they be. This has to end.

Religion uses many tricks and fallacies to convince people to do the most horrible things, but when you mix religion and politics, then you get an even greater power dynamic. Now you get complete control. This has been repeated over the 5+ thousand years that we've had civilizations.

It must be wiped out.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

25 retaliatory battles of Christian Europe pushing back the Islamic jihadists over a couple hundred years, compared to over 500 separate relentless Jihadi battles into Europe over the course of 1300 years?

It's ludicrous to consider the actions of all Islamic political entities over the course of 1300 years of history as having some common direction. That Islam and Islamic empires spread at various points does not mean that it was all jihad-related. The umma was supposed to spread; why would you not want to be in God's good-guy club?

Saying jihad is a Muslim issue is like saying polygamy is a Christian issue. Yes, there are branches of Islam which have the idea that jihad is a thing for modern times as opposed to the pig-fucking past, and unfortunately the people actually controlling Mecca and Medina at the moment are the Saudis, who originated Wahhabism, which states exactly that. Not only do they call for jihad against infidels, they're also calling jihad on insufficiently pure Muslims, and they teach terror to our enemies. ISIL and Al Qaeda were both Wahhabist, and this weapons deal with the Saudis will distribute bombs to terrorists.

Wahhabism is an issue, not jihad. That and we've fucked over the entire region economically on such a fundamental level for the last 200 years to the point where the only people who can maintain control are complete assholes. Like, yes, jihad is a thing, but most people are unlikely to want to interpret it to mean 'you should try to kill people for God' if they have decent lives and aren't overly brainwashed by the Saudi religion of death.

The difference between the Saudis and ISIL is that the Saudis have oil. They both believe in the exact same violent extremist form of Islam, and the Saudis are pretty insistent that this be the default branch of Islam. Many people disagree, especially because as bad as relations have been between Wahhabist terrorists and the West, the jihadist states have been far more effective at killing insufficiently-strict Muslims. See also the civil war in Afghanistan.

Your history and understanding of Islam is a bit off. Islam is a mental disease that has issues with such things as democracy and the concept of the nation-state, but it's mostly harmful only to its adherents. Wahhabism does need to be eradicated, starting with the Saudis.

I remember how I felt...

[aicrules]

During and immediately after September 11, 2001. But is it really so easy to say such things that are antithetical to the free world? I get that it's hard to have to follow rules, but remember that when you're the one with black hood pulled over your head even though you know you didn't do anything wrong, it's you who asked for this Theresa May.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[bluefoxlucid]

The mistake is simple: it's easier to keep an orderly society if everyone is enslaved by a small, powerful policing force with severe response to any deviation from orderly behavior; however, this does not provide people with security.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[stdarg]

Slippery slope is almost universally a bullshit argument. Yes it's theoretically possible that this could evolve into a horrible police state that disappears innocent people. But realistically if they use it to lock up jihadis, it'll be a good thing. If the kind of people who would start using it on regular people get elected, it seems like you're kind of screwed anyway because wouldn't they just do the same stuff secretly?

Re:I remember how I felt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that this isn't new behaviour for May. She's been trying to get privacy invading laws through since even before she was Home Secretary.

Her personal politics are that if the state can see everything, they can arrest people for thought crime and pre-crime offences, and save money on investigative policing. I do not like it one bit.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst argument I've seen in a while.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[Desler]

Theoretically possible? Did you miss your history lessons on East Germany and Mao's China? Based on history, it's a guarantee.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember how I felt on 9/11, too. I did not want my rights taken away and I did not want to invade a country unless they were absolutely behind it. And American politicians chose to do do both. Fuck you as always, American politicians.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[Nidi62]

Slippery slope is almost universally a bullshit argument. Yes it's theoretically possible that this could evolve into a horrible police state that disappears innocent people.

I'll just leave thishere

Re:I remember how I felt...

[amiga3D]

It's bullshit. They already have cameras on every corner and all kinds of spying in place. The problem is one of competency. They have what they need they're just mismanaging it. She could start by pulling all the coverage off of Asange. How asinine to waste millions penning a journalist in an embassy. So what if he escapes? He's done nothing to the UK.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slippery slope is only a bullshit argument when it's used against something where the proposed action has nothing to do with the feared consequence.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[Anonymous Coward]

... universally a bullshit argument.

Based on what? Hitler, Caesar, Mao, Saddam Hussein and the borderline Ergodan didn't shoot their way into power like Pinochet and Lenin. Most dictators were hired to fix a problem, which they did, then became the problem.

... if they use it to lock-up jihadis ...

That's a big 'if'. Where does the law say they can't lock-up other people?

... start using it on regular people get elected, it seems like you're kind of screwed ...

One can justify anything with that argument. Let's give guns to children, because they don't want to shoot anybody: The result is 40 dead or injured children in the USA every week; all of them occurring outside adult supervision, which is mandated in most USA states.

What you're really saying is, the people should hold the leaders personally responsible. That's a great idea: Now, how do poor people make the rich and powerful pay compensation?

Re:I remember how I felt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Many months after 9/11 I drove passed a large national brewery with a friend on the way to drop off a load at the dump. On the way back we decided to stop by and check it out. We were greeted by a security guard as we walked toward the front of the building. He asked us what we were doing there. We told him that we just decided to check it out since we were passing by. He told us that since 9/11 they canceled all brewery tours and public access of any kind. It was at that moment that I realized the terrorists had already won.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[aicrules]

I'm very happy to see it's not that easy to say such things. Even if that wasn't the reason for such a loss of power, it had to be part of it.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Theoretically possible? They're advocating arrest and incarceration without any actual plan for a trial, on what they know is insufficient evidence for a conviction.

Let's be really clear, here: If they use this only on Jihadis, this will still be a disgusting trampling of basic human rights, as enshrined in the West. Until there's sufficient evidence to convict the aforementioned Jihadi, *they are normal people*. The kind of people who propose, or support, this type of policy are already the kind of people, elected or otherwise, who would use this on "regular people". By. Freaking. Definition.

There's no need for a slippery slope argument when the person proposing the policy draws a picture of a greased slide pointed into a mud pit and says, "That's where I'm taking us, boys. Hop on."

Re:I remember how I felt...

[ebvwfbw]

It started long before 9/11/2001. Islam has been at war with the west for 1400 years. They may hay over the crusades where they got their asses kicked back. As if we're supposed to be sorry for that. Now they're coming again, the invasion already happened. They have every intention of setting up Sharia law and taking over.

Europe won't be Europe much longer if they don't fix it.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[stdarg]

And?

Re:I remember how I felt...

[stdarg]

Come on, don't be so ignorant. It's a guarantee? Remind me when my family was taken away because of the Patriot Act. Oh yeah that didn't happen.

Mao's China was the result of a revolution, not a slippery slope. East Germany was a result of the Soviet's share of spoils over Germany. How is that slippery slope?

Is "Tear Up" a direct quote?

[myth24601]

Not an punctuation expert but the headline and summary seem to indicate that the use of the words "Tear up" came from May's mouth. Did she really say that?

Re:Is "Tear Up" a direct quote?

[Kierthos]

Not "Tear up", per se, but here's a quote from her in the article:

"And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it."

Yeah, that doesn't sound fucked up at all.

Re:Is "Tear Up" a direct quote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like she's out to do more harm to society than the terrorists ever could. Don't sedition laws apply to the PM?

Re:Is "Tear Up" a direct quote?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were actually aware of how outdated these laws really are then you wouldn't be so outraged.

The current laws make it virtually impossible to target terrorists hiding behind human shields. The law needs to be updated.

Re:Is "Tear Up" a direct quote?

[Calydor]

But she only says she'll change the laws so they can do what they want. Are you REALLY SURE you want the law changed to "Anyone voting against Theresa May's party can be locked up indefinitely."?

Re:Is "Tear Up" a direct quote?

[Hognoxious]

They've got two speeches mixed up. That bit's from one about what she intends to do to some animals when she wins.

It's interesting to note that anti-terror legislation has been aimed at animal rights & other groups of dirty scruffy hippies before. Some of them are a bit crazy, but the IRA they ain't.

Re: Is "Tear Up" a direct quote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, any excuse. They were a slight danger to pharmaceutical and farming interests and weren't averse to a bit of criminal damage or arson, though there are accusations that the latter was instigated by one of the undercover cops sent to infiltrate them.

You gotta figh!, for your right!

[Anonymous Coward]

to tear up their rights!

Oh yeah, bin laden won! He is dancing in his watery grave.

Re:You gotta figh!, for your right!

[elrous0]

It's not your "right" to stay in a country if you immigrate there and start engaging in terrorist activity or associating with known terrorists. A country should have every "right" to deport you for it, though. And it sounds like that's all May is asking for here.

Re:You gotta figh!, for your right!

[Merk42]

It's not your "right" to stay in a country if you immigrate there and start engaging in terrorist activity or associating with known terrorists. A country should have every "right" to deport you for it, though. And it sounds like that's all May is asking for here.

What if you were born there and start engaging in terrorist activity?

Re:You gotta figh!, for your right!

[F.Ultra]

Travel to the UK and partake in actual terrorist activities and I guarantee you that you will be deported today. What May are after are ways to deport you if they think that you are doing something that they have absolutely no proof of you doing.

Re:You gotta figh!, for your right!

[yuriklastalov]

Maybe we should stop teaching schoolchildren about the evils of "whiteness" and "western civilization". Maybe that'd stop these Muslims from radicalising. Who'd have thought that a bunch of disaffected children of immigrants, fed a steady stream of propaganda about how evil their host country is, would fall back on their own radical traditions instead of jumping up in solidarity to bravely fight the Capitalist oppressors? Nice fucking work by the well-meaning but ultimately naive and self-defeating Marxist/Feminist/Critical Theory/Left-wing-word-salad crowd. BUT MUH PRAXIS!

Unfortunatly

[Bromrrrrr]

It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it

Re:Unfortunatly

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the world of the Black Death! Paint for the door marks are distributed at the city hall, along with the face masks. Stragglers will be shot, so keep your children and elderly at your side at all times.

UK Conservative government is odd

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just an outsider, but this government seems odd. It won a general election in 2015, and instead of chilling until 2020, called for another general election in 2017. Right before the election, they issue statements like this. Are they TRYING to lose? Like, it would blow my mind if the Republicans waited for something controversial to happen that could hurt them in the elections, and then choose that moment to somehow call for a new cycle of elections.

Dishonest Use of "Tear Up"

[eepok]

The way "tear up" is used the summary, it is conveyed that May is saying that she will "tear up" human rights law in the linked article. She didn't say that. The Labor Party as has said, per the article, "by ripping up basic rights".

May actually tweeted, "I'm clear: if human rights laws get in the way of tackling extremism and terrorism, we will change those laws to keep British people safe." (https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/872181737933217794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Ftheresa-may-if-human-rights-laws-get-in-our-way-we-will-change-them)

There's no need to compromise your integrity to sully May. She's doing well enough on her own.

Re:Dishonest Use of "Tear Up"

[Anonymous Coward]

May actually tweeted, "I'm clear: if human rights laws get in the way of tackling extremism and terrorism, we will change those laws to keep British people safe." (https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/872181737933217794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Ftheresa-may-if-human-rights-laws-get-in-our-way-we-will-change-them)

yeah, and the brits will be safest when they're all put in tiny concrete cells where terrorists do not have access.

Re:Dishonest Use of "Tear Up"

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I've actually read (or seen) cases where it appeared that Britain harboured wannabe terrorists far longer than they should have, based upon Free Speech principles. On that basis I would support some legal changes to allow more timely deportation or prosecution. With appropriate protections in place as always.

However why, oh why, did May raise the imagery of Human Rights? Loss of Human Rights in the face of authoritarianism is such a well-travelled road in human history, it's just asking to be criticized. "Just give up your Human Rights and I'll keep you safe!" is the calling card of nearly every dictator, ever.

Augusto Pinochet. Robert Mugabe. Mobutu Sese Seko. Benito Mussolini. The Duvaliers. Joseph Stalin. Nicolae Ceausescu. Pol Pot.

The list is endless. Are those the legacies that May wishes to associate herself with?

Please, vote Lib Dem

[Anonymous Coward]

I urge any Britons who haven't voted yet to vote on a Liberal Democrat candidate. The UK could do with some sanity and a lot of long-term harm can be prevented if neither of the major parties gain a majority. One major party wants to establis a totalitarian police state without any solid guarantee on basic human rights, the other wants to ruin the economy and make the government meddle in everything. Make sure neither of them get to run the country alone for the next five years.

Re:Please, vote Lib Dem

[Captain Splendid]

I urge any Britons who haven't voted yet to vote on a Liberal Democrat candidate.

Yeah, let's waste a vote on possibly the most useless political party in the western world.

Re:Please, vote Lib Dem

[Anonymous Coward]

Call them what you want, they were the only party in the last couple of decades that managed to almost completely halt the creeping fascism that's been going on when they got into coalition.

That in itself makes them less useless than any other UK political party if you give even the slightest shit about liberty, but then, if you hate the lib dems, you probably don't give a shit about liberty, because, well, that's kind of their thing.

Re:Please, vote Lib Dem

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If only the traditional moderate third party hadn't turned itself into a single-issue campaign group this time, and picked an issue heavily opposed by public opinion at that. The Lib Dems' political incompetence and ability to make strategic blunders seem almost boundless, and until they do something about that weakness, they're never going to attract and maintain enough support to actually do anything about policies that matter. I fear we are now doomed to a generation of two-party politics in England, with both being rather too extreme to actually be any good.

Re:Please, vote Lib Dem

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, it's easily the least bad option. As an outsider, I really cannot fathom how Labour and the Tories get so many votes. Especailly after the Brexit fiasco, where the Lib Dems where the only part actively campaigning to remain in the EU.

Re:Please, vote Lib Dem

[Captain Splendid]

almost

Horseshoes and hand grenades. Fuck the Lib Dems.

Re:Please, vote Lib Dem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you worry about facism: The best way to avoid the rise of true facism, is to implement a few of the policies they want. Whatever they cry the most about, whatever they actually find support for. "More of the same, pretending that real problems don't exist" in order to not be seen as a facist government, will cause facist parties to grow stronger and stronger. Because people see real problems - and if facists are the only ones offering a solution, then facism it will be, eventually.
See Sweden, where a certain party doubles in size every election because the others pretend that immigrant problems doesn't exist.

On the other hand, implementing a few strict policies in an otherwise liberal government may be enough to keep facist parties marginalized.
 

Re:Please, vote Lib Dem

[Anonymous Coward]

Useless might be more beneficial than Conservative or Labour.

Ergo

[pr0t0]

We're going to fight the terrorist agenda of disrupting our way of life in order to make their voices heard, by disrupting our way of life thus making their voices heard.

Can't imagine why people continue to use terrorist tactics. /s

Re:Ergo

[Anonymous Coward]

We're going to fight the terrorist agenda of disrupting our way of life in order to make their voices heard, by disrupting our way of life thus making their voices heard.

I know London's mayor instructed everyone to not be alarmed, but in case you haven't noticed, terrorism and terrorists have already disrupted their way of life as well as everyone else's.

Much of this is due to the liberal, yet risky, immigration and refugee policies they've adopted combined with laws and a culture that is overprotective of the very group that's causing all the death and destruction. They've essentially put out a welcome mat for the enemy and have attempted to silence anyone who wants to fight this scourge in an effective way by labeling them as racist extremists akin to the terrorists themselves.

Can't imagine why people continue to use terrorist tactics.

Can't imagine why people continue to coddle foreign terrorists to the detriment of their own people. Oh, that's right, they think we can hug it out. If we only show them how nice we are, they would surely leave us alone. That hasn't worked since . . . ever.

Re:Ergo

[Sparowl]

Can't imagine why people continue to coddle foreign terrorists to the detriment of their own people. Oh, that's right, they think we can hug it out. If we only show them how nice we are, they would surely leave us alone. That hasn't worked since . . . ever.

Neat how these attacks have been domestic terrorists, brought up and raised in country.

Re:Ergo

[William Baric]

The terrorist agenda is not simply to disrupt our way of life in order to make their voices heard. In the case of Islamists, they hate us simply for who we are. They can't accept that an inferior group of people (us) are not under their domination, like it is said into the Quran.

Re:Ergo

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

Terrorists have barely impacted anything of significance. You're more likely to be killed by just about anything else.

You remind me of my relatives who are too scared to go to the movie theater because of a single shooting that happened years ago. Whoopie!!!

Re:Ergo

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't imagine why people continue to coddle foreign terrorists to the detriment of their own people. Oh, that's right, they think we can hug it out. If we only show them how nice we are, they would surely leave us alone. That hasn't worked since . . . ever.

Neat how these attacks have been domestic terrorists, brought up and raised in country.

Even neater is the fact that most are either foreign born or their parents were. Regardless, these are foreigners with a foreign culture that accepts and produces these Islamic terrorists by the thousands. Places like the Britain, Germany, and France have become terrorist incubators -- literally occupied by the enemy and protected by a naive government.

Nothing to be alarmed about . . .

Re:Ergo

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorists have barely impacted anything of significance.

That's delusional. I think the tens of thousands who have been tortured and killed by terrorists are considered significant.

You're more likely to be killed by just about anything else.

You're not very likely to be struck by lightning either, yet it's not advised to run outside in a lightning storm holding a lightning rod at the top of a mountain. However, that's essentially what these western countries have done by welcoming the enemy, that is Islamic terrorism, into their home.

You remind me of my relatives who are too scared to go to the movie theater because of a single shooting that happened years ago. Whoopie!!!

Unsurprisingly, you confuse diligence and vigilance for fear. Try not to project your ignorance and cowardice on the rest of us.

Re:Ergo

[RockDoctor]

There has been a shooting? In a fleapit?

Personally, I balme the Americans. Over-paid, over-sexed, but (fortunately) over there.

Captain Picard has the answers!

[__aaclcg7560]

Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Foolishness.

[Gravis Zero]

Speaking after Saturday's London attack, Mrs May said "enough is enough" and that "things need to change" in the terror fight.

The death and injury of people is tragic but destroying the rights of your own people is just idiotic. Terrorists aren't killing millions, they killed maybe 100 in the last decade. More people die from drowning than terrorist attacks!

Re:Foolishness.

[Anonymous Coward]

But people don't buy it when I tell them we are closing the beaches to the public to keep them (cough) safe. Only the ruling elite may use beaches henceforth. I even played the movie jaws for them.

Historically the shift in the populace from complacent to chopping off heads happens rather abruptly. But mob violence is typically neither just nor effective at restoring equality.

Re:Foolishness.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're at least an order of magnitude off, more like two. A simple Google search would have you see that "maybe 100" in the last decade is perhaps one of the most shortsighted and naïve things said on ./ today.

In 2016 alone, over 1300 killings.
In 2015, over 3000 killings.
In 2014, over 2000 killings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

That's just 3 years and we're WAY over your "maybe 100" killed. Probably time to do some more research before making dumb comments that destroy your credibility.

Re:Foolishness.

[AHuxley]

People are not placing rivers, pools and ponds in strange places to induce issues.
People are meeting, funding and supporting terrorists. That can be stopped.

Re:Foolishness.

[Gravis Zero]

People are meeting, funding and supporting terrorists. That can be stopped.

That's fine, just don't sacrifice people's basic rights to do that because it's shitty trade.

Re:Foolishness.

[AHuxley]

People's basic rights?
Normal peoples basic rights are still protected.
A normal person can comment on a political party, start a political party, read a book, buy a book, go to a movie, worship, start a faith, meet to question government policy.
Groups in the UK or sneaking into the UK for generations can be stopped.

Re:Foolishness.

[Gravis Zero]

Normal peoples basic rights are still protected.

The problem is that you working under the presumption of guilt. If they get it wrong then normal people have been stripped of their rights.

Re:Foolishness.

[AHuxley]

The UK has some very unique laws from the 1950-90's surrounding people, groups who are planning, preparing, funding, supporting illegal activities.
Why such laws are not been used on all the people in the UK or who have entered the UK who support, fund and help with illegal activities could be another question.

Re:Foolishness.

[houghi]

Perhaps the Americans are confused by the use of the Metric system. The attacks they do now are less than a US school shooting.

Re:Foolishness.

[RockDoctor]

Is that a Regular school shooting, or an extra-large McSchool shooting? Do you want fries with your massacre?

Theresa May, appears to have joined forces w/ISIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to put restrictions on Theresa May, she's letting the terrorists win!!

She hasn't defeated a single terrorist, so she's allowing terrorists to function, which makes her illegal.

Cars allow terrorists to get around, make all cars illegal.
Buses allow terrorists to get around, make all buses illegal.
Airplanes allow terrorists to get around, make all airplanes illegal.
The atmosphere allows terrorists to breath, make the atmosphere illegal.

Hmmm, better yet, Let's just shut Theresa May the fuck up, she's a blooming idiot.

stupid cow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, do tear up the fucking Magna Carta for your momentary ideas of security. Do not address your imperialism or role in backing military adventurism, do not address inequality or mental health issues, you're right Mrs. May, the only response possible is to crack down on individual rights and freedoms that traditionally separated western society from the gulags.

Terrorism must not be allowed - totalitarianism is the Torrie salvation.

Response is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Brits actually respond to that in a strong way, or just take it? Oh wait, they have no means of revolt against a clear tyranny because they allowed their guns and rights to all be taken away.

Congratulations, you have all been conquered by nazis, and they never had to fire a shot.

Re:Response is....

[Opportunist]

Please. In this time and age, if you want to revolt, you don't need any guns. Actually, they wouldn't even help you at all.

Re:Response is....

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. In this time and age, if you want to revolt, you don't need any guns. Actually, they wouldn't even help you at all.

So, tell us, how do YOU plan to revolt ?

Post complaints on Facebook about how you and your SJW blowbuddies are sticking it to the man ?

Re:Response is....

[Anonymous Coward]

they certainly responded stronger and more effectively than Americans have

Re:Response is....

[Opportunist]

Organize using the internet, hit the streets. What are they going to do, gun down a few millions of people? Any government as much as trying to do that is done for.

This quote comes to mind

[Anonymous Coward]

This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.

Ob-ManForAllSeasons

[Anonymous Coward]

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

TAS Red Zone

[Anonymous Coward]

Never visit a country that doesn't respect human rights. It is bad for your health.

The right to sneak into another country.

[Anonymous Coward]

The rights she are talking about are the laughable ones created out of whole cloth by human rights campaigners that prevent criminals from being deported.

There are others that think immigration is a human right, thus restrictions are a violation. Others believe that life imprisonment is cruel. Still others belief criticizing a group/religion is also a violation.

(Rights are collectively enforced, so it's at least worth discussing what society considers a right and what it doesn't.)

Word verification: winers

Re:The right to sneak into another country.

[AHuxley]

Groups of faith are using the refugee laws to draw in large groups of military age men every generation.
Places of worship are been used to protect, support and fund military age men.
The command structure hides behind freedom of religion.

Clearly, think of the children!

[sinij]

Theresa may think that the only way to fighting radical Islam is to build a totalitarian regime, I hope voters disagree. Personally, I would rather government protect my rights than keep me safe.

Re:Clearly, think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it the dream of every conservative to lead an authoritarian/totalitarian society? Not sure why people are thinking otherwise

Re:Clearly, think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Theresa may think that the only way to fighting radical Islam is to build a totalitarian regime, I hope voters disagree. Personally, I would rather government protect my rights than keep me safe.

I think it is the other way. It is 100% obvious from her actual actions that she doesn't care one single bit about fighting terrorism, her only goal is to build up a totalitarian regime.

Re:Clearly, think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it the dream of every liberal to lead an authoritarian/totalitarian society? Not sure why people are thinking otherwise

FTFY.

Re:Clearly, think of the children!

[Opportunist]

Yeah, because May is the epitome of liberalism.

Please, if you want to be stupid, be my guest, but try to do it in the privacy of your home instead of publicly.

Re:Clearly, think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have it completely backwards. The only way to build a totalitarian state is fighting racial islam. The people in power want more power, and know how to go about it. Even if they have no hand in causing, or allowing terrorist attacks (I'm not that optimistic), they certainly are willing to use them.

Re: Clearly, think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Different strokes for different folks.

Quit betting in one side or the other. This is not a sporting event.

The UK won't

[Anonymous Coward]

She will. Take fucking responsibility for your own actions, May. Stop blaming everyone else. Stop trying to pretend you're bigger than you are, and own the fucking stuff you're doing.

Oh, and for those who rebought this BS from the conservatives and national fruitcake front and youkippers, there is no block to deporting terrorists back to their home country. the only impediment is the rather obvious one YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR CASE FIRST that they're a terrorist. What this stupid piss-stain wants to do is avoid having to actually do any proof or find evidence, because it's so damn inconvenient.

But that's what the damn rule of law MEANS you fucking idiot, May. If we're going to do without that, you're fucking in the river, bitch. 'cos there ain't shit that's against the law when those in charge of seeing to the law insist that it can be ignored.

Hey, it might work!

[Altrag]

If the common rhetoric is true -- that terrorists just hate our freedom -- then the most obvious way to stop them is to just have no freedom! Win-win, right!

Re:Hey, it might work!

[yuriklastalov]

I realize you're joking here, but I wanted clarify what "They Hate Us For Our Freedom" means.

To be blunt: It does not mean there are terrorists sitting around in their caves saying, "Those filthy Americans! They're just so FREE! Why, if they weren't so FREE we'd all be better off! DEATH TO AMERICA AND THEIR FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!"

Instead, think of "They Hate Us For Our Freedom" in light of the individual freedoms we have in the west. What freedoms might such zealous individuals be angry at? Simple. They hate us because we let our citizens choose their own religion. They hate us because we don't stone gay people. They hate us because we give women equal status with men. They hate us because our own weak and decadent culture is killing itself in a fruitless quest for greater and greater virtue. They hate us because we're not Islamists.

They don't hate us because of freedom qua freedom. They hate us because the particulars of our freedom are antithetical to their oppressive, totalitarian religious practices. Honestly, who cares why terrorists hate us? They'll go right on fighting the "Great Satan aka the West" no matter what we do, until there is no Western Civilization left except in whatever history books make it through the Islamist purging of history.

So the reason these Muslims are so pissed off

[Anonymous Coward]

is that they have un-monitored Internet access?
But they killed like 200 million people even before the Internet was invented, what is up with that? Did they predict that un-monitored Internet would happen and lay siege on Vienna?

just 3 words

[Anonymous Coward]

human
rights
laws

do she even know what each of them means?

Re:just 3 words

[Opportunist]

Maybe. Does she care? Certainly not.

No longer "in the highest degree odious"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just compare this to what Winston Churchill famously said in 1942: "The power of the Executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist." And the UK was in thousand-fold greater danger then than it is now.

Why everyone appears to be so thin-skinned these days? And why the first objective of modern-day rulers is to dispense with the rule of law and civil liberties, even when they have vast resources at their disposal?

I'm afraid that in the future, people will indeed say WWII era was the UK's "finest hour", but it will be for reasons Churchill had not envisioned.

Re:No longer "in the highest degree odious"?

[AHuxley]

AC People in the UK or sneaking into the UK are issues "known to the law".
People funding and supporting groups or activities in the UK are issues "known to the law".

Ben Franklin

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess in the UK they don't have Ben Franklin to quote in situations like this.

If history has taught us anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Totalitarian forces are ultimately usurped by free people, and go down in history as 'Scum' and 'Bad Guy' and for several generations (if not forever) their allegiances are shunned; everybody today still hates Nazis (except the Nazis).

So go for it Theresa and friends, your legacy and how the world remembers you are at stake, too!

Re:Theresa May, appears to have joined forces w/IS

[Hognoxious]

She hasn't defeated a single terrorist

Perhaps that explains it. As they say, if you can't beat them - join them.

Unworthy

[sdinfoserv]

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
We are officially unworthy of the society and protections envisioned, negotiated and fought for by our founding fathers.

V For Vendetta: Cautionary tale?

[Rick Schumann]

Just might be. As fucked-up as it is here in the U.S., I'm SO glad I don't live in the UK, and I feel SO much sympathy for the good people who have to live in that mess.

Theresa May, A Woman for One Season

[T.E.D.]

Ooooh! This is next level stuff here. She's playing her parliamentary predecessor from the late 1500's, William Roper's part from Thomas Moore, A Man for All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Reality Check, UK

[prince hal]

Here's some facts to consider:

1. The number of people in the UK who died an alcohol-related death in 2015 was 8,758, a more or less typical year.
2. The number of Brits who died in automobile-related incidents in 2013 was 1,713, but that was the lowest number since they began keeping records in 1926 (just ten years earlier, in 2003, the number was 3508).
3. The total number of terrorism-related deaths in the UK since 1970 is 3,395. That's an average of approximately 72 per year over the last 47 years.
4. Over the last ten years, the number of terrorism-related deaths in the UK is roughly the same as the number of deaths from bees and wasps.

Given these figures, it would make more sense to take away their right to drink and/or drive.

Or, at least, get rid of the bees and wasps...

Re:Reality Check, UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some more facts to consider:

All of the things you mentioned are risks without malicious intent... Except for the last. That is, there is a subset of those risks you mentioned that WANTS and is ACTIVELY seeking to kill you.

If there are known murderers in your city street (or any location), do you chalk it up to a risk you're willing to take walking that street, the same risk as you would getting stung by bees?

Intent is important, which is why we have the definition of "murder" and "manslaughter." I don't know about you, but dying from the inherent risks of driving versus actively being murdered are two very different things.

Re:Reality Check, UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Intent only matters to determine a fair punishment.
You don't want to punish someone the same for negligently killing someone than for purposefully.

To the one being dead is doesn't matter at all. And therefore from a risk prevention standpoint it doesn't either.

Re:Reality Check, UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, killing off the bees would be worse than this:
https://www.thebalance.com/bee-colony-collapse-disorder-facts-and-economic-impact-3305815

Re:Reality Check, UK

[prince hal]

Actually, killing off the bees would be worse than this

Yes, but that was the joke part of the post...

Oh please

[Opportunist]

Could we just tear her up instead?

Now she's campaigning!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope it's not too late.

You hit the nail on the head there

[rsilvergun]

now at last we can focus on the real threat, Dihydrogen Monoxide

Early exit polls say ...

[Hognoxious]

Tories largest party, but no overall majority - a hung parliament.

Re:Early exit polls say ...

[WillAffleckUW]

Tories largest party, but no overall majority - a hung parliament.

BC in Canada has a similar situation. The outgoing Premier seems not to get that, should she not be able to form a majority coalition, she doesn't get to be Premier. Same in the UK with the PM (same basic electoral method).

Guess it will be a Labour/SNP PM replacing her.

Nothing if not logical...

[Archtech]

Mrs May's logic is impeccable.

"Why do they attack us?"

"Because they hate us for our freedoms".

"Simple, then: we'll abolish our freedoms, so then they won't hate us any more".

Q.E.D.

Re:Nothing if not logical...

[Anonymous Coward]

One doesn't need to take away everyone's freedom. Open a prison island and take away the freedom of all the radical clerics and their disciples. Or even simpler, deport them to Qatar, since it is already a prison island.

Re:Nothing if not logical...

[dlingman]

Cause nobody ever escapes from Arkham now do they?

authenticity of Churchill quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's Snopes claiming this quote as authentic:

Snopes

Snopes refers to the Churchill Centre to back up its claim. It also mentions that many versions of this quote omit one sentence of praise for "Moslems". The Federalist Papers site does not omit this but is correct in this detail as well as the rest.

Re:authenticity of Churchill quote

[Darinbob]

I don't doubt that Churchill said that, but so what? Churchill was wrong on this regard. His imperialist background is showing through in bright colors here.

Re:authenticity of Churchill quote

[FranklinWebber]

The point of my post was not to echo Churchill about Islam but rather to suggest that one can gain confidence in an information source by looking for other sources on the Internet. Yes, I know that's obvious. The poster to whom I was replying, though, either didn't understand it or didn't make the effort.

Re:authenticity of Churchill quote

[AutodidactLabrat]

Every civilized person knows that it is not Islam, but Christianity, which has sparked the bloodiest wars of the 20th and 21st Centuries
It was Catholic Hitler who proclaimed his "Duty to the most high" as basis for the slaughter of 20 million Russians and 100 million human beings
It was Christian G.W. Bush who declared "Crusade" (sic) in order to murder 1 million plus innocent Iraqis.
All of the craziest of the most insane branches of Islam don't even come close
So, yes, Churchill was WRONG!

authenticity of Churchill quote

[FranklinWebber]

Here's Snopes claiming this quote as authentic:

Snopes [snopes.com]

Snopes refers to the Churchill Centre to back up its claim. It also mentions that many versions of this quote omit one sentence of praise for "Moslems". The Federalist Papers site does not omit this but is correct in this detail as well as the rest.

[I accidentally posted this as an AC a few minutes ago.]

You have a woman terrified at...

[Anonymous Coward]

...her own people. She needs a psychiatrist. I few crazy people act so some terrible things and the UK wants to spin it like it's their 911. Sorry folks in the UK, but you are all living in your own 1984 hell and they're just using terrorism to scare all the "think of the children" idiots.

A shame she didn't do her job as Home Secretary

[WillAffleckUW]

Who do you think tried to water down civil rights in the first place?

Terrorists just need to Martyr May.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the knee-jerk reaction will have to be to enact her policies as a matter of personal legacy during her funeral proceedings.

I think this would be doubly ironic, don't you?

They had better act fast though, they only have until the next election to make it happen.

Fantasy-land "human rights or hate-crimes"

[Anonymous Coward]

Trotsky Jews like those concepts & words ... makes thought-crime an easy sell and financial crimes obscure. Jews + sheep have human rights; Anglo yeomanry hate-crimes. Never stop! That's why every-so-often Hitler comes along ...

France's bad precedent

[manu0601]

While I would not consider this as a model to follow, France's president Hollande already did that in 2015

If they want to prevent terrorism maybe

[PJ6]

they should start talking about its cause.

Hint: it has just the tiniest bit to do with the West's foreign policy.

Re:If they want to prevent terrorism maybe

[walterbyrd]

Non-sense.

Muslim commit terror attacks on other Muslims even more than they do non-Muslims.

Hint: it has just the tiniest bit to do with Islam's perfect example. You know, a man who was himself a murderer, a rapist, a slave owner and trader.

Re:If they want to prevent terrorism maybe

[PJ6]

Non-sense.

Muslim commit terror attacks on other Muslims even more than they do non-Muslims.

Hint: it has just the tiniest bit to do with Islam's perfect example. You know, a man who was himself a murderer, a rapist, a slave owner and trader.

Blame the religion if you want, but that hot mess in the Middle East is definitely and completely our fault.

Maybe you'll care enough to dig and gradually lose your ignorance of history, just like I did, with growing horror.

And if you do, I'm sorry.

Re:If they want to prevent terrorism maybe

[ChoosyBeggar]

they should start talking about its cause... Hint: it has just the tiniest bit to do with the West's foreign policy.

The whiny, teenage guilt is strong with this one.

No Islamic terror in Poland or Japan

[walterbyrd]

Follow their lead?

Dylan Roof

[Anonymous Coward]

And most were white rednecks. Don't forget that.

Bin Laden is Shark Poop

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather, was.

She'll need a parliamentary majority

[nicolaiplum]

She will need a Parliamentary majority for some of that.

It's a shame she doesn't have one of those any more.

What about Right to Live

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did so-called rights become more important than the humans. Those who seek to commit murder and are not human

Restricting Human Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the UK has many Human Rights left to restrict? Who would have guessed.