Support NeoGAF

[Spoiled Milk]

Holy shit, the language. Does this sell in the UK?

 

[Lord Frieza]

All in favour of Tories. Possibility of no majority, but after May's bold move today she could swing it back in her favour.

All depends how much fervor she inspires, how much the headlines tomorrow rally the troops, how much the youth bother to vote.

It's not looking good if you're a Labour supporter, though.

I believe the final polling was around

43% Cons
36% Labour
8% LD
5% UKIP

With the knowledge that Tories are usually under estimated and Labour over.

If there's no majority, what kind of power does that give May?

 

[Pomerlaw]

As a foreigner in the uk, i must say while the terrorist attacks are definitely awful and terrible, they haven't made me feel less safe and scared enough to leave and go back home.

However, May and her cronies going full ham and talking about striping civil rights and controlling the internet, while defunding the police, and the nhs and whatever else is there to defund, are making me seriously consider leaving as soon as my lease is over.

Great post

 

[azyless]

Holy shit, the language. Does this sell in the UK?

Pretty sure the 2 most read "newspapers" in the UK are the Sun and the Daily Mail so...

 

[faridmon]

Good. You need to be human to have Human Rights and these terrorists are anything but. Not that I'd ever vote for May though.

Talk about missing the point of this law.

 

[Harrison Bergeron]

What a mistake it was liberating the individual to go about their own political society, and strive and reason to discover justice. Clearly we require the steady and paternalistic hand of a group of benevolent elites in order to keep us in the rabble safe from our naivety.

 

[eizarus]

Pretty sure the 2 most read "newspapers" in the UK are the Sun and the Daily Mail so...

And their readers will just see the headline and say, "Yeah! Get thems muzzies out of here!" They're not particularly well known for their intelligence.

 

[Theonik]

What a mistake it was liberating the individual to go about their own political society, and strive and reason to discover justice. Clearly we require the steady and paternalistic hand of a group of benevolent elites in order to keep us in the rabble safe from our naivety.

The UK barely survived Thatcher. This is basically the worst parts of Thatcherism x100.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Holy shit, the language. Does this sell in the UK?

It works on a lot of older folks, and unfortunately, that generation reliably votes at every election while the younger vote often doesn't.

 

[Wvrs]

Help us Corbyn, you're our only hope.

 

[Frozenprince]

The terrorists won.

Period. They won. They beat us.

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

Holy shit, the language. Does this sell in the UK?

You bet your ass it does. In the UK all you need at this point to sell the majority of voters is 'fuck those foreign guys'. It's a lost cause.

 

[Frozenprince]

This is basically making a smooth transition step by step if a charismatic dictator ever arose possible.

Hell he could probably sell it as "strengthening the Monarchy" or some crazy crap.

 

[eizarus]

It works on a lot of older folks, and unfortunately, that generation reliably votes at every election while the younger vote often doesn't.

I'd argue it's because the political system prefers that younger people don't vote and the words of politicians reflect that.

 

[Zakalwe]

If there's no majority, what kind of power does that give May?

It's complicated stuff, read this.

There are various outcomes that could be in our favour. The good news is that whatever happens Tories will not be increasing their seats, which is what May set out to do by calling this election. She will almost certainly resign, which is a silver lining.

 

[Lord Frieza]

It's complicated stuff, read this.

There are various outcomes that could be in our favour. The good news is that whatever happens Tories will not be increasing their seats, which is what May set out to do by calling this election. She will almost certainly resign, which is a silver lining.

At least that is good. But who would be next in line? Someone better, as bad, or even worse?

 

[Shaneus]

Any idea how this will play into the election? Swing voters couldn't possibly be interested in voting for her with her saying shit like this... could they?

 

[Zakalwe]

At least that is good. But who would be next in line? Someone better, as bad, or even worse?

It's covered partially in the article about half way down, but it probably wont make much difference. We'll just get to feel good about her going for the increase and failing and not seeing her face any more (or at least a /lot/ less often).

 

[Dead Man]

Bloody hell. Good luck UK. Been a hell of a couple of years so far. Hope you get some sane leaders soon.

 

[Sanjay]

Any idea how this will play into the election? Swing voters couldn't possibly be interested in voting for her with her saying shit like this... could they?

My guess is they want the UKip voters.

 

[The Mule]

If you want to rip up human rights laws, what are you fighting terrorism for?

 

[ShironRedshift]

If you want to rip up human rights laws, what are you fighting terrorism for?

Pretty much. Just doing their job for them at that point, not realizing that you've become precisely the thing you detest.

 

[Monocle]

Good. You need to be human to have Human Rights and these terrorists are anything but. Not that I'd ever vote for May though.

The point of human rights isn't to protect awful people, even though awful people have basic rights too. It's to protect everyone else who might be the accidental or intentional target of witch hunts, wrongful conviction, and abuse.

To agree that human rights should be stripped from criminals is to pretend that society has a flawless record of identifying criminals and doling out perfectly proportional punishments only to the deserving.

It's always a mistake to take the side that's against human rights. That's a bright red flag for trouble, because it's really your rights that are on the line. If you can't take the ethical side based on empathy, take it based on self-interest.

 

[Mivey]

This is basically making a smooth transition step by step if a charismatic dictator ever arose possible.

Hell he could probably sell it as "strengthening the Monarchy" or some crazy crap.

Is there such a thing? I mean, among all these hard-right populists and conservatives playing to the hard-right crowd, is there someone who is actually personally charismatic? Half of them seem to me, even superficially, like the horrible people they are. Like, even on the first impression. The other half seems initially like any other politician.

 

[Chinner]

The terrorists have won.

 

[dyergram]

I'm really scared that the conservatives will win I think I'm getting karma for laughing at the trump situation. I don't think I've been this invested in a ge since the Blair days.


Ps my phone autocorrects Blair to liar lol.

 

[Jackpot]

And suddenly I'm much more scared than I was when I heard about any terrorist attack.

 

[ferrasvansen]

So much for never letting the terrorists win, what a crock of shite that is. Doing this sort of shit is what they want so they win, changing our way of life is their plan and with idiots like May in charge it is a win for Isis and co.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

It works on a lot of older folks, and unfortunately, that generation reliably votes at every election while the younger vote often doesn't.

So tomorrow will be BREXIT redux

 

[MudoSkills]

One of their election promises in 2015 was that they would scrap the Human Rights Act in order to introduce the 'British Bill of Rights', telling us it was in our best interests to have them 'fix' our human rights. People voted them in with that.

I'm not sure why people are surprised at this reappearing now, or why people expect the results to be any different.

 

[Danielsan]

Yes let's fight terrorism by giving the terrorists what they want. Excellent stuff.

 

[jelly]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40176990

Worth reading that to understand what we can do already and have done in the past. May is dangerous and using the attacks as an excuse to do worse things and god knows what to normal good citizens.

The PM said she would make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and "restrict the freedom and movements" of those that present a threat.

This looks very much like an attempt to return the current TPim restrictions - a form of house arrest - closer to what they used to be when they were called control orders. Those orders were created by Labour in 2004 and they included long curfews and restrictions on who people could meet and communicate with. They were abolished by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and replaced by less restrictive TPims in 2011.
The human rights law issue may be less dramatic than it sounds. States can "derogate" or suspend their observance of parts of the European Convention of Human Rights if they need to. Tony Blair's government did it in 2001 to create a form of detention without charge for foreign suspects who could not be deported - something I will come back to.

Many terrorism suspects are not put on trial for terrorism offences because there are other tools in the criminal law box that are right for the job.
So, for instance, had one of the London attackers survived, he would have been charged with murder.
Parliament has seen no need to create a separate offence of "terrorism murder". The mandatory sentence for murder is already life.
Judges can order that life means life - no chance of parole - which is exactly what Michael Adebolajo got after his trial and conviction for murdering Fusilier Lee Rigby. Thomas Mair got the same sentence for killing MP Jo Cox.
What about a terrorist bomb plot? Again, no need for special crimes. Really important Victorian law covers explosives - both their possession and use.

Some people regularly talk about bringing back the death penalty. The UK, through its own choice, adopted the measure in the European Convention on Human Rights (which is nothing to do with the EU or Brexit) that required the abolition of capital punishment in all circumstances. We are legally a world away from the noose.

What about internment - detention without charge?
Before TPims and their predecessor control orders, Tony Blair's government tried detention without charge for foreign national terror suspects who could not be deported. That was thrown out by the UK's highest judges - and it was as politically controversial as the hated internment camps during Northern Ireland's Troubles.
If people want to see internment back, they have to ask themselves who exactly they want to see held, for how long, on what grounds. Would it actually work? In Northern Ireland, it was a recruiting sergeant for the IRA.

 

[StayDead]

I hate the Tories so much and I feel completely powerless.

Surely if the tories get in we need to have a hell of a lot of protests, just anything to stop them completely destroying our chance at life. They called that stupid referendum, want the hardest brexit possible and we'll be a tax haven by the end of their next term.

We're completely fucked.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Deporting foreign terrorists sounds fairly sensible, no?

Same with longer prison sentences?

We already deport foreign terrorists. She wants to remove due process from deportation.

Longer prison sentences don't change shit, as evidenced by the US

 

[ClosingADoor]

It's always a mistake to take the side that's against human rights. That's a bright red flag for trouble, because it's really your rights that are on the line. If you can't take the ethical side based on empathy, take it based on self-interest.

But human rights have changed and evolved over time. If times change, isn't it only natural we look at the current human rights laws and see if they still apply or are counter productive to guaranteeing the safety of others, who also have a right to live in peace?

I see a lot of people going to extremes here, which May's talking about "ripping up" human rights laws certainly doesn't help.

Yet in the opening post I see 3 things:

- Longer prison sentences for terrorists. Nothing to do with human rights.
- Deport foreign terrorist suspects to their own country. Will depend on how they define them being suspects. If this is someone who is preaching hate, does the UK have a responsibility to somehow fix this person, or can they say: off you go, we don't want you. I see no problem with that. They are foreigners, thus have another passport or nationality, so we are not talking about making people stateless.
- Restrict freedom and movement for terror suspects. Again, would depend on what they have on them. When we have people walking around who freely went to Libya and such, have been reported for extremist views, already done crime, etc, etc. How many chances are we to give such a person?

If certain human rights laws are in the way to dealing with those problems, then is wouldn't be that bad to have a look at them and see if that needs changing without hurting innocent people in the process.

 

[Charles Brandon]

I'm not sure if she just doesn't understand the connotations of saying things like this, of the lessons from history about what happens when you start moving in this direction OR if she does understand these things, doesn't care and has actually gone power mad.

She is looking increasingly unstable in my opinion. Way more out there than I thought she would be, way beyond anyone we've had since Thatcher but Thatcher at least had gravitas and some solid arguments behind her machinations. May seems to be subsuming the interests of her own party and the entire nation into her own personal career path.

She needs to be stopped and it can only come from within the Tories now.

 

[Chasm Skulker]

One of their election promises in 2015 was that they would scrap the Human Rights Act in order to introduce the 'British Bill of Rights', telling us it was in our best interests to have them 'fix' our human rights. People voted them in with that.

I'm not sure why people are surprised at this reappearing now, or why people expect the results to be any different.

You'd be surprised just how popular that suggestion is. Not everyone heard that and thought "gallows and gibbets for all" a lot of people thought "wow, now we can finally deport people convicted of terror offences".

In our democracy, some things like capital punishment don't go to a vote because the British public is far less liberal than one might suppose. I have zero doubt that any move increasing the ability for the authorities to seize people on watch lists before they commit crimes would be very popular.

 

[Messofanego]

When this starts to happen to innocent people, don't be surprised if this becomes further fuel to terrorist recruitment.

In a way yes.

As a British Muslim, I honestly have to wonder when this is going to get abused and innocent people will start getting getting "deported"(regardless of whether they were UK born or not). Innocent people have been locked up and detained for years under the Terrorism Act. A friend of my cousin up here in Scotland was held for about 4 years and subsequently cleared of all charges when he got his trial eventually because of some Bin Laden joke he made.

That's horrible and depressing. Glad he finally got out of it.

 

[Charles Brandon]

to crystallise my thoughts further: she is the first PM in my lifetime with whom I have genuine concerns about a hidden agenda. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron all had their faults, many of them colossal, but at the end of the day, I believe that all of them had the interests of the country at heart.

 

[Gunblade47]

How can this be cheered?

During Apartheid the ruling government classified the ANC as a terrorist organization and imprisoned and killed many of its members. Today they are celebrated as freedom fighters that fought for not only their human rights but those of every other South African citizen.

The UK might be facing terrorist threats today but this will be a massive overreach and a major setback to not only the UK but humanity as a whole.

"They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin

And a government that would so proudly state their intentions to overstep human rights will have no problem turning on their citizens.

UK is just spinning out of control at this point.

I'm not saying that these acts of terror that hit the UK are those of freedom fighters. I'm saying that fear shouldn't be used to give up our fundamental rights.

 

[Ensirius]

This is just election talk.
If she is reelected she won't do anything.

 

[Gunblade47]

But human rights have changed and evolved over time. If times change, isn't it only natural we look at the current human rights laws and see if they still apply or are counter productive to guaranteeing the safety of others, who also have a right to live in peace?

I see a lot of people going to extremes here, which May's talking about "ripping up" human rights laws certainly doesn't help.

Yet in the opening post I see 3 things:

- Longer prison sentences for terrorists. Nothing to do with human rights.
- Deport foreign terrorist suspects to their own country. Will depend on how they define them being suspects. If this is someone who is preaching hate, does the UK have a responsibility to somehow fix this person, or can they say: off you go, we don't want you. I see no problem with that. They are foreigners, thus have another passport or nationality, so we are not talking about making people stateless.
- Restrict freedom and movement for terror suspects. Again, would depend on what they have on them. When we have people walking around who freely went to Libya and such, have been reported for extremist views, already done crime, etc, etc. How many chances are we to give such a person?

If certain human rights laws are in the way to dealing with those problems, then is wouldn't be that bad to have a look at them and see if that needs changing without hurting innocent people in the process.

Problem with that is the definition of terrorist is up to them. It could be that citizens caught in violent protests over things like human rights could also be classified as a terrorist and be silenced.

 

[lazygecko]

Holy shit, the language. Does this sell in the UK?

There's a reason so much dystopian fiction is set in and written by the British. Their culture is uniquely predispositioned to this kind of shit compared to the rest western society.

 

[Charles Brandon]

This is just election talk.
If she is reelected she won't do anything.

Her record suggests she will.

There's a reason so much dystopian fiction is set in and written by the British. Their culture is uniquely predispositioned to this kind of shit compared to the rest western society.

Pah! What? How?

 

[Charles Brandon]

edit: double post

 

[The Scrivener]

Yup..

Go rewatch V for Vendetta or Children of Men. I mean those are so close to reality for the UK it is fucking scary.

Or The Lord of the Rings.

A recent pic I saw online was captioned:

"Sire, the orcs are at the gate"
"Well, don't be racist, let them in!"

 

[31GhostsIV]

This is just election talk.
If she is reelected she won't do anything.

I would suggest you take a look at what May has done to our online privacy in the past few months, as well as her historical stance on the Human Rights Act, before dismissing this as election time guff.

 

[Keasar]

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Yup..

Go rewatch V for Vendetta or Children of Men. I mean those are so close to reality for the UK it is fucking scary.

Came in to say this. Really scary how close those movies are getting. While we are talking about movies coming close, USA is totally ideocracy.

 

[WhatNXt]

Or The Lord of the Rings.

A recent pic I saw online was captioned:

"Sire, the orcs are at the gate"
"Well, don't be racist, let them in!"

Is "immigrants = orcs" this generation's "jews = vermin"?