[Closed] Words fail me - Theresa May...

They go against the rule of law for sure, what is she up to?

These are the times I worry about the future...

cynic-al - Member
They go against the rule of law for sure, what is she up to?

Trying to Cynically win an election?

I'm no fan of Abu Hamza either but what has this got to do with him?

Qatada on the other hand* is a puzzler. If he is such a nasty piece of work, surely he would be locked right now. As far as I can see he hasn't actually been found guilty of serious crime. I'm no fan of mouthy gobshites, which he certainly is, but if he is a terrorist, lock him up. Or has it now got to the face saving stage...
.
.
.
*see what I did there? 8)

renditions, drone strikes, etc
this is peanuts compared to some of the other stuff in the war against terror
arms sales to saudi, bahrain etc
persecuting the disabled, those on benefits........

I think you leave your morals at the door when you join the cabinet

and May being a woman amongst the pack of braying old etonians and bullingdon bully boys has to stand up and be counted with them

Abu Hamza was deported to the US wasn't he??
I assume you mean Abu Qatada.

Edit-which is contradictory as the US clearly tortures suspects both at Guantanamo and elsewhere and also has the death penalty.

"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past" (Orwell 37). 

Shame on her.

May being a woman amongst the pack of braying old etonians and bullingdon bully boys has to stand up and be counted with them

So what was Tony Blair's excuse ?

The last Labour government received very little hassle as they engaged in extraordinary renditions, drone strikes, arms sales to Saudi, Bahrain, etc.

And handing people over to Libya to be tortured, without any sort of public outcry, was remarkably easy for New Labour.

I agree with ernie.

im well aware that renditions were carried out under nulabour, straw, d.milliband and co- which is why I mentioned them

and i dont think it was ignored
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#London
infact blair has had more accusations of warmongering than any PM im aware of

just saying that May has to be that much more ruthless because shes a woman of the nasty party

tony= who knows? faith in god, himself??

Genuine question from someone who may be a bit dim - what would be the consequences if we just booted the bellend out?

Napalm - Member

"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past"

Now testify!
Testify!
It's right outside your door!

What kind of message does it send when the government tries to circumvent the law in order to get rid of people they don't like? Aren't the Tories supposed to be the party of law and order?

What kind of message does it send when we try and circumvent the law in order to get rid of people we don't like.

Maybe that as a nation, we aren't just a soft option for extremist tools to come and exploit?

Maybe that as a nation, we aren't just a soft option for extremist tools to come and exploit?

Or that as a nation, we just make up the rules as we go along when we don't like people (while sanctimoniously preaching to other countries about human rights).

may has to be that much more ruthless because shes a woman of the nasty party

But if you accept that New Labour were no different when it comes to "extraordinary renditions, drone strikes, arms sales to Saudi, Bahrain, etc." then had she been a woman of the New Labour party, she would presumably have needed to have been equally ruthless.

The fact that she is a Tory appears to be a red herring.

Again, I agree with Ernie.

This is getting worrying 😉

Maybe that as a nation, we aren't just a soft option for extremist tools to come and exploit?

ooohh does that mean we should kick out nick griffin too?

and i dont think it was ignored
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#London
infact blair has had more accusations of warmongering than any PM im aware of

As I said, he received very little hassle - he wasn't even sacked.

And went on to become "Middle East Peace Envoy".

Or that as a nation, we just make up the rules as we go along when we don't like people (while sanctimoniously preaching to other countries about human rights).

No change there then.

shirley its a blue herring?

I suppose you are trying to get me to say that I think the torries are less compassionate than nulabour

well .....yes I do - there seems to be little compassion at the moment http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/24/disable-appeal-independent-living-fund

and maybe im mistaken but May seems to be bending over backwards to please some of the really quite unpleasant people on the telegraph comments board and im assuming that they would consider themselves torys

To be fair I think the reason Theresa May is getting flak just now instead of Tony Blair is that this is a shit thing she's doing right now, rather than in the past. "Tony Blair is a dick" isn't news.

If the only response you have is "Well so and so did something bad too" then I'm afraid you are boned. That's not a defence, it's an admission of failure.

yeah Tony B, loved by all

[img] [/img]

tony blair war criminal is the top search assosciated with his name on google

I suppose you are trying to get me to say that I think the torries are less compassionate than nulabour

I not trying to get you to say anything. I just think your suggestion that "renditions, drone strikes, arms sales to Saudi, Bahrain, etc." are something specific to the Tories should be challenged, clearly they are not. And in the case of extraordinary renditions and drone strikes they were first instigated by New Labour. In fact I'm not even aware of any extraordinary rendition cases under a Tory government.

Plus of course New Labour didn't bother with the law, and simply sent people illegally to be tortured.

it's not a party political matter; it's selective human rights.

This bloke is just an outlier, but how long before the majority start to be affected by the casual disregard for the rights of the individual?

kimbers

It was actually the Tories who introduced the ILF in 1988 for an initial 5 year period.

erm where did I say they were exclusive to the torries?

everyone recognises T.W.A.T. as being part of the bush/blair years rather than the coalition, Im not aware of any renditions under the current government either, which is why I mentioned renditions (but then by their nature you wouldnt, did anyone know back then?)

Ernie, any chance you could engage with the thread rather than arguing against a suggestion Kimbers hasn't made?

BTW
When was this halcyon time when the UK was seen as a bastion of liberty and human rights in anyone's minds except our own??

TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR - Member

Genuine question from someone who may be a bit dim - what would be the consequences if we just booted the bellend out?

The opposition party(s) use it as an excuse to stir up a storm in the tea cup. Apart from that no other nations in the world would care about your internal business, but if they cannot get him out the rest of the world would just simply laugh at you.

grum - Member

What kind of message does it send when the government tries to circumvent the law in order to get rid of people they don't like? Aren't the Tories supposed to be the party of law and order?

You should be better asking where in the world does a govt not circumvent the law?

Again it's not about political parties it's about which party in the world is a party of law and order?

grum - Member

Or that as a nation, we just make up the rules as we go along when we don't like people (while sanctimoniously preaching to other countries about human rights).

Tell me which nation does not do so? You are lucky that in the Western world you still have the law to mess with. In other part of the world you simply disappear. End of story. No news. Speculate as much as you like.

bigrich - Member

it's not a party political matter; it's selective human rights.

This bloke is just an outlier, but how long before the majority start to be affected by the casual disregard for the rights of the individual?

Should be human wrong ... not human right. Human can never be right.

🙄

Ernie, any chance you could engage with the thread rather than arguing against a suggestion Kimbers hasn't made?

What are you talking about Northwind ?

What do you think this is ?

kimbers - Member

renditions, drone strikes, etc
this is peanuts compared to some of the other stuff in the war against terror
arms sales to saudi, bahrain etc
persecuting the disabled, those on benefits........

I think you leave your morals at the door when you join the cabinet

and May being a woman amongst the pack of braying old etonians and bullingdon bully boys has to stand up and be counted with them

Something I made up ?

my points were 2fold

that once in the CABINET (that refers to any government) morals are lost and i used T.W.A.T. as an example quite clearly something assosciated with nulabour

and that May has to be more of a hard-faced b--- because of the party shes in

please highlight exactly where I said that "renditions, drone strikes, arms sales were specific to the torries"?

or just keep repeating the same thing over and over till I go to bed

infact I give up youve won, Im going to bed,
I do hope this minor victory in your never ending struggle against whatever it is that upsets you so much about stuff I havent said leaves you with a smug self satisfied glow for the rest of the evening 😥

please highlight exactly where I said that renditions, drone strikes, arms sales were specific to the torries?

or just keep repeating the same thing over and over till I go to bed

ernie_lynch - Member

But if you accept that New Labour were no different when it comes to "extraordinary renditions, drone strikes, arms sales to Saudi, Bahrain, etc." then had she been a woman of the New Labour party, she would presumably have needed to have been equally ruthless.

The fact that she is a Tory appears to be a red herring.

Posted 51 minutes ago

Ernie, you made this bit up:

ernie_lynch - Member

your suggestion that "renditions, drone strikes, arms sales to Saudi, Bahrain, etc." are something specific to the Tories should be challenged, clearly they are not.

He has made no such suggestion. But you know that.

Oh ok, I made it all up. The references to "the Nasty Party" and the "braying old etonians and bullingdon bully boys" wasn't kimbers trying to make an issue about May being a Tory, or turning it into a party political issue.

How could I have misunderstood ?

🙄

It's almost as though that was a separate point about Theresa May eh, since it's in a different paragraph and all and doesn't sit at all with the point that precedes it. How could you have misunderstood it? Good question.

OTOH I think Kimbers is pretty patronising to assume it's a "female in a man's world" issue- May is a strongminded person and perfectly capable of being a bawbag off her own bat. It's a possible explanation but not the only one.

Apologies all I meant Abu Qatada when I originally posted yesterday. Was very tired from a particularly hard day at work filled by a great evening ride at Cannock! Lots of natural riding and a tiny bit of the Monkey.

it's not a party political matter; it's selective human rights.
This bloke is just an outlier, but how long before the majority start to be affected by the casual disregard for the rights of the individual?

This is what I was getting at. Blair government, Coalition government it doesn't matter. When governments choose to act immorally to suit themselves we have a problem. It's not a new thing, but Mrs May et al seem to be taking these steps to show they are tough on terror and to appeal to an electorate on that basis. To my mind if you are going to do that they may as well repeal the removal of the death penalty for a day - hang him and then reinstate the removal.

Imagine the furore if another country tried to do what the government are trying now but involving a British national abroad...

and lo............after i posted that ernie just keeps repeating himself, he quotes me saying this and then repeats himself!?

then he changes from the spurious

ernie_lynch - Member
your suggestion that "renditions, drone strikes, arms sales to Saudi, Bahrain, etc." are something specific to the Tories should be challenged, clearly they are not.

to the slightly less made up

kimbers trying to make an issue about May being a Tory, or turning it into a party political issue.

as ernie knows what im thinking better than I do, I think it best I just send him my login and password and he can post for me

or maybe, just maybe he could ADMIT HE WAS WRONG! (yeah i know porcine aviators etc)

and back vaguely on topic, yes May is going to these extraordinary lengths to try and win back the support of the ex-tory voters defecing to ukip

Both the New Labour and Tory governments have a total disrespect for the rule of law . It is viewed not as a code of recognised moral and ethical principle but as a political tool for social control. Hence their attitude that it does not apply to their actions and if it stands in their way it is to be changed or ignored.

Where do we stand if we just boot him out? Well we all will know that as citizens our safety and liberty depends not on any objective standard of justice but on the whym of a politician who may chooses to send us into exile simply because we have said something unpopular. If their respect for the rule of law how do you justify punishing the burglar who takes what he wants because he can.

[img] [/img]

My favourite portrait of sir anthony

as ernie knows what im thinking better than I do

I know what you post.

And it is very clear by your the references to "the Nasty Party" and the "braying old etonians and bullingdon bully boys" in your attack on Theresa May that were suggesting that had she not been a Tory she would have behaved differently. There is no evidence to back that up that claim, in fact the opposite is true.

You now claim that your references to "renditions, drone strikes, arms sales to Saudi, Bahrain, etc." was not an attack on the Tories. Of course it wasn't, you were in fact attacking New Labour, in your anti-Theresa May post, weren't you ? ! 🙂

.

and lo............after i posted that ernie just keeps repeating himself

I was thinking the same thing about you - it's a funny old world, innit ?

[img] [/img]

Surely Theresa May is the Tory's equivalent of John Prescott - a "token" minister. Prescott was the supposedly harmless token working class New Labour guy and Theresa May the token wearer of odd shoes. Both potentially dangerous in the sense that they held/hold positions of power, but equally both harmless as their rhetoric is pretty much always let down when it comes to execution. You have to wonder how either kept/keep their positions other than making those around them look good. Its hard to know whether contempt or pity is the correct emotion. TM's brinkmanship re European Court of Rights will fail and once again we face the challenge of respecting law (and to link to yesterday) freedom of speech when the outcome appears uncomfortable.

Genuine question from someone who may be a bit dim - what would be the consequences if we just booted the bellend out?

Well if the rulers and creators of law ignore the laws when it suits them why shouldn't we all.

The rule of law should apply to everyone, it is one of the main tenet's of any society based on fairness and equality.

When we get such demonstrations of law only being applied when it suits by the very highest authorities, then it chips away at the rules by which we live and just leads to more people saying **** the law and **** the system.

MSP, yesterday you argued strongly against those who use intimidation and hatred against others (presumably even in the verbal sense) and for not bring pushed around by vile hatred. The Europen Court has described Abu Qatada as a "very dangerous man", so presumably more of a threat to law-abiding citizens than an EDL thug. So where exactly do you/does one draw the line?

FWIW, apart from her typical false bravado May has handled this reasonably well up until this latest threat. But good for the Lib Dems for being the voice of reason here (based on news reports).

We have to respect the rule of law to avoid anarchy or goverment abuse.

Doesn't everything Theresa May does have to be viewed through the prism of her leadership ambitions?

When Dave was having his Gay-Marriage wobble a few months ago, she was making herself very visible as a potential Tory leader. She was shamelessly positioning herself as the champion of the more bonkers, foaming-at-the-mouth, hang-em and flog em section of the party. Which seems to represent most of them, apart from Daves inner circle, to be honest.

So once you've set your stall out on that platform, then that's your audience. So stuff like this is just par for the course, surely?

The difficult bit about human rights is that you have to apply them to people you despise, not pick and choose as it suits.

I'm also mindful that we've had about 10 years to bring a case against this bloke, and we still haven't managed it.

Absolutely Ransos. If this bloke is the terrorist mastermind he's supposed to be, then what does it say about the competency of our security forces that they have failed, over a ten year period, to secure enough evidence for a conviction!

You can't just try people for being unpleasant. Which is what, if you go purely on the strength of evidence, is taking place here. Christ! half the country would be on trial at any one time if that was the case

nick1962 - Member

Abu Hamza was deported to the US wasn't he??
I assume you mean Abu Qatada.

... who, of course, comes from Czechoslovakia...

The difficult bit about human rights is that you have to apply them to people you despise, not pick and choose as it suits.
I'm also mindful that we've had about 10 years to bring a case against this bloke, and we still haven't managed it.

Very True Ransos!

Well if the rulers and creators of law ignore the laws when it suits them why shouldn't we all.
The rule of law should apply to everyone, it is one of the main tenet's of any society based on fairness and equality.
When we get such demonstrations of law only being applied when it suits by the very highest authorities, then it chips away at the rules by which we live and just leads to more people saying * the law and * the system.

Agreed!

Where do we stand if we just boot him out? Well we all will know that as citizens our safety and liberty depends not on any objective standard of justice but on the whim of a politician who may chooses to send us into exile simply because we have said something unpopular.

And this as well!

I'm no fan of Theresa May but a big supporter of efforts to get Qatada deported. Signing a new treaty with Jordon is real progress.

As for the EU convention on human rights - it's just not working - so it either needs to be reformed or we should withdraw and replace it in the UK with our own version.

Yes, Binners, I picked the wrong token! Should have been May is the daily wail token! We really would be in trouble if she rose any further.

Agree ransos, which is why it is interesting to look back on yesterday's thread on protesting against the far right. In that case those who opposed the use of violence, kicking out and suspension of law were treated with some interesting accusations and abuse.

MSP, yesterday you argued strongly against those who use intimidation and hatred against others (presumably even in the verbal sense) and for not bring pushed around by vile hatred. The Europen Court has described Abu Qatada as a "very dangerous man", so presumably more of a threat to law-abiding citizens than an EDL thug. So where exactly do you/does one draw the line?

FWIW, apart from her typical false bravado May has handled this reasonably well up until this latest threat. But good for the Lib Dems for being the voice of reason here (based on news reports).

We have to respect the rule of law to avoid anarchy or goverment abuse.

I think EDL thugs are just as dangerous as Abu Qatada and his ilk, although he would be perhaps more comparable to an organiser and inciter in the EDL rather than a front line thug.

I do not differentiate between them because I am more likely to be a victim of one rather than the other based on my own social group. Unfortunately the mechanisms of authority seems more focused on muslim extremists rather than white supremacists, which is why there is a need for people to stand up and demonstrate that both should be resisted.

Besides that I am not sure what you think I suggested in resisting the EDL would be against the rule of law.

As for the EU convention on human rights - it's just not working - so it either needs to be reformed or we should withdraw and replace it in the UK with our own version.

How?

Now testify!
Testify!
It's right outside your door!

😆

*Goes to dig out some RATM*

Theresa May reminds me of a boy racer's car.

Lots of noise, but little movement.

Northwind - Member

Napalm - Member

"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past"

Now testify!
Testify!
It's right outside your door!

This was my first thought too..... 😀

I think EDL thugs are just as dangerous as Abu Qatada and his ilk, although he would be perhaps more comparable to an organiser and inciter in the EDL rather than a front line thug.

Really? How many bombings have the EDL carried out? Have they even kidnapped anyone?

Given that ten years on, we still haven't prosecuted Abu Qatada, what do you suppose he has done?

Nothing much here. But we're trying to deport him, not prosecute him.

It seems that the government is trying to enact on the will of the majority of the people in the UK.

so where do laws get amended to suit the will of the majority or are two or three judges superior in intelect to the masses and should dictate to the country how they run themselves, its politics and the will of the people v the judiciary

In my view, as its been both political persuasions trying to deport the guy, I am just a little concerned that it is the judiciary not the people who are deciding.
maybe if he had a deportaion trial by jury then the verdict would have been different a long time ago.
and again Im not up on all the facts of the law just the little I read on here and the press.

In a democracy the law is supposed to represent the will of the people. If it isn't then you change the law.

5thElefant - Member

In a democracy the law is supposed to represent the will of the people. If it isn't then you change the law.

True. But temporarily removing a law then reinstating it doesn't really do that... If there's a wholesale problem with the law, then address it but this is just evading it.

And likewise this idea of changing the law today and backdating the impact is a terrible one.

As for the EU convention on human rights - it's just not working - so it either needs to be reformed or we should withdraw and replace it in the UK with our own version.

How many bombings have the EDL carried out? Have they even kidnapped anyone?

If this bloke is the terrorist mastermind he's supposed to be, then what does it say about the competency of our security forces that they have failed, over a ten year period, to secure enough evidence for a conviction!

Maybe he hasn't committed crimes here. Or maybe he's managed to avoid providing any evidence of doing so. I suppose it might be sensible in that case to deport him to a country where he has...

Really? How many bombings have the EDL carried out? Have they even kidnapped anyone?

How many beatings do EDL thugs dish out on a weekly/daily basis, how much does their behaviour and propaganda encourage racist violence?

I expect there is a more real and imminent risk of violence and even death for minorities in the UK, than there is for the white straight average looking majority suffering from terrorism.

True. But temporarily removing a law then reinstating it doesn't really do that... If there's a wholesale problem with the law, then address it but this is just evading it.

And likewise this idea of changing the law today and backdating the impact is a terrible one.

I like the French approach. Just pay the fine. Much simpler.

May's first plan is to appeal under existing law.

The backstop, as far as I understand it, is to ensure he receives a fair trial. He is not being deported because there has, to date, been no guarantee that his trial in Jordan would involve the use of previous evidence secured by torture. Under the new treaty such evidence will be precluded and therefore his grounds for staying would disappear. That is not a retrospective change in law in this country but a change in law, most would argue for the better, in the other country.

If that fails, she will review all options including potentially looking at the ECHR but that is a couple of stages away.

Really? How many bombings have the EDL carried out? Have they even kidnapped anyone?

Not the EDL but a former member of their more moderate cousins the BNP.

David Copeland (born 15 May 1976) is an English Neo-Nazi militant who became known as the "London Nail Bomber" after a 13-day bombing campaign in April 1999 aimed at London's black, Bangladeshi and gay communities.[2] Widely labelled a terrorist, Copeland was a former member of two far right political groups, the British National Party and then the National Socialist Movement.

Over three successive weekends between 17 and 30 April, Copeland placed homemade nail bombs, each containing up to 1,500 four-inch nails, in holdalls that he left in public spaces around London. The first bomb was placed outside the Iceland supermarket in Electric Avenue, Brixton, an area of south London with a large black population. The second was in Brick Lane in the East End of London, which has a large Bangladeshi community. The third was inside the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho's Old Compton Street, the heart of London's gay community. The bombs killed three people, including a pregnant woman, and injured 139, four of whom lost limbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland

As for the EU convention on human rights - [b]it's just not working[/b] - so it either needs to be reformed or we should withdraw and replace it in the UK with our own version.

Evidence?

It seems that the government is trying to enact on the will of the majority of the people in the UK.

Evidence?

Perhaps we should dispense with the legal system altogether and just let the editors of the Sun and Daily Mail rule on these matters.

As for the EU convention on human rights - it's just not working

Can somebody please explain what this means?