FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Civil rights removal

Jump to newest
 

By *lue Narwhal OP   Man
over a year ago

Iceland, but Aldi is closer..

Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield

I think most people would assume phone tapping evidence or intercepted messages would be able to be used in court. But it seems it can't.

Personally, I think it is insane that it can't.

The messages and calls can be legally listened to by intelligence services, but can't be used in court. Madness imo.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

"

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oncupiscentTonyMan
over a year ago

Kent


"...police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away."

Seems fair enough to me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If Jeremy Corban gets in we are doomed lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?"

What next, as technology advances, thought interceptions and that loop hole needing to be closed?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield


"

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?"

They can have committed a crime by planning a terrorist activity. If that was all done on the phone and it was tapped, do you think it is right that can't be used in court to gain a criminal conviction. We are the only country in the developed world to not allow it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rladytoyMan
over a year ago

bournemouth


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?"

and thats why people are being butchered in the street. prevention is better than cure, would u not agree ? any link whatsoever no matter how small them string them up, or for the weak minded deporr them instantly

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To me it would be better to risk offending a few people so called civil liberties by infringing on their privacy than picking up dead bodies from our streets

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?

They can have committed a crime by planning a terrorist activity. If that was all done on the phone and it was tapped, do you think it is right that can't be used in court to gain a criminal conviction. We are the only country in the developed world to not allow it."

Planning a terrorist activity is covered by other laws and would trigger other investigations.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rrol.BMan
over a year ago

Wrexham


"What next, as technology advances, thought interceptions and that loop hole needing to be closed?"

Free thought has been a blight on this fair nation for far too long. I, for one, hope that Theresa May stamps out any and all thoughts that run counter to proper, God-fearing, Queen loving, chip eating British ways of thinking.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *htcMan
over a year ago

MK

remove it, agree with her

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?

and thats why people are being butchered in the street. prevention is better than cure, would u not agree ? any link whatsoever no matter how small them string them up, or for the weak minded deporr them instantly"

I'll keep my liberties and take my chances, thanks. Living in a free society involves a degree of risk, it's the price you pay for your own protection from the state.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

And one by one all freedoms are removed, in the belief that if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear. Until the thing you are doing, which was fine, is no longer allowed and then you too are a criminal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield


"

They can have committed a crime by planning a terrorist activity. If that was all done on the phone and it was tapped, do you think it is right that can't be used in court to gain a criminal conviction. We are the only country in the developed world to not allow it.

Planning a terrorist activity is covered by other laws and would trigger other investigations.

"

Correct, planning terrorism is a crime already in its own right. But all the evidence that was collected by phone tap or messaging interception couldn't be used in court. How is that sensible and how does it affect anyone's civil liberties?

No other country does it.

Most people would assume that if they discussed such things on the phone and it was recorded they would be imprisoned on the basis of it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield


"And one by one all freedoms are removed, in the belief that if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear. Until the thing you are doing, which was fine, is no longer allowed and then you too are a criminal.

"

No, because that involves a change in the law outlawing the particular liberty. If they wanted to pass a law banning swinging that needs to go through parliament. The admission of phone evidence doesn't change any existing liberties.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lactontogMan
over a year ago

Clacton on Sea


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

"

Facebook in the UK & US have given out our info for years & phone tapping as been rift from the 60's so it's nothing new, we live in an age now where men in glass house shouldn't throw stones.

To the everyday person life will go on as normal but you mention "gun" "bomb" on messages & it will be flagged on computers that tag our conversations for key words, it makes a safer world even if it means we become a communist state to achieve this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"

They can have committed a crime by planning a terrorist activity. If that was all done on the phone and it was tapped, do you think it is right that can't be used in court to gain a criminal conviction. We are the only country in the developed world to not allow it.

Planning a terrorist activity is covered by other laws and would trigger other investigations.

Correct, planning terrorism is a crime already in its own right. But all the evidence that was collected by phone tap or messaging interception couldn't be used in court. How is that sensible and how does it affect anyone's civil liberties?

No other country does it.

Most people would assume that if they discussed such things on the phone and it was recorded they would be imprisoned on the basis of it."

Blunt tools aren't the answer. It's used as intelligence, not evidence, in order to get better irrefutable evidence. Using it when the person can just say that they were just having silly banter on the phone helps none of us.

Take it away from terrorism and think about some of the sex calls scenario, for activities if committed without consent would be illegal. That tap could be used to prosecute what was a play scenario.

You don't give up rights, you craft better, smarter legislation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lue Narwhal OP   Man
over a year ago

Iceland, but Aldi is closer..


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?"

And what if they have committed a crime and is bragging about that fact in a telephone call?

Consider it's a murder being bragged about, do we have to wait for the next murder to happen?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lkDomWhtSubBiCpleCouple
over a year ago

Somewhere / Everywhere /Kinksville


"To me it would be better to risk offending a few people so called civil liberties by infringing on their privacy than picking up dead bodies from our streets "

Sure . If you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't have anything to fear

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rladytoyMan
over a year ago

bournemouth


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?

and thats why people are being butchered in the street. prevention is better than cure, would u not agree ? any link whatsoever no matter how small them string them up, or for the weak minded deporr them instantly

I'll keep my liberties and take my chances, thanks. Living in a free society involves a degree of risk, it's the price you pay for your own protection from the state. "

cool, join isis why your at it w

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"And one by one all freedoms are removed, in the belief that if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear. Until the thing you are doing, which was fine, is no longer allowed and then you too are a criminal.

No, because that involves a change in the law outlawing the particular liberty. If they wanted to pass a law banning swinging that needs to go through parliament. The admission of phone evidence doesn't change any existing liberties."

Read the first line again. I fully understand that law would have to changed. My point is that as you strip away liberties it's easy to sweep things into legislation.

I'm out of this now because I can see that this is turning into a politics forum type argument and I deliberately don't go there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *angzMan
over a year ago

Manchester, London & sometimes Newcastle


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?

and thats why people are being butchered in the street. prevention is better than cure, would u not agree ? any link whatsoever no matter how small them string them up, or for the weak minded deporr them instantly

I'll keep my liberties and take my chances, thanks. Living in a free society involves a degree of risk, it's the price you pay for your own protection from the state. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"To me it would be better to risk offending a few people so called civil liberties by infringing on their privacy than picking up dead bodies from our streets "

Voice of wisdom there.. I totally agree...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lue Narwhal OP   Man
over a year ago

Iceland, but Aldi is closer..


"

They can have committed a crime by planning a terrorist activity. If that was all done on the phone and it was tapped, do you think it is right that can't be used in court to gain a criminal conviction. We are the only country in the developed world to not allow it.

Planning a terrorist activity is covered by other laws and would trigger other investigations.

Correct, planning terrorism is a crime already in its own right. But all the evidence that was collected by phone tap or messaging interception couldn't be used in court. How is that sensible and how does it affect anyone's civil liberties?

No other country does it.

Most people would assume that if they discussed such things on the phone and it was recorded they would be imprisoned on the basis of it.

Blunt tools aren't the answer. It's used as intelligence, not evidence, in order to get better irrefutable evidence. Using it when the person can just say that they were just having silly banter on the phone helps none of us.

Take it away from terrorism and think about some of the sex calls scenario, for activities if committed without consent would be illegal. That tap could be used to prosecute what was a play scenario.

You don't give up rights, you craft better, smarter legislation.

"

Ok, a photo message sent from a phone implicating the sender to a crime is intercepted.. irrefutable evidence of the crime.

The police get a warrant and get hold of the phone but the picture has been deleted, the memory overwritten so no forensic evidence of the photo remains.

What then?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If Jeremy Corban gets in we are doomed lol"

Who?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rrol.BMan
over a year ago

Wrexham


"If Jeremy Corban gets in we are doomed lol

Who?"

Kurt Corbans less musically inclined brother.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lkDomWhtSubBiCpleCouple
over a year ago

Somewhere / Everywhere /Kinksville


"If Jeremy Corban gets in we are doomed lol

Who?"

He was in Nirvana

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?"

It depends what they are discussing over the phone, if they are planning a crime then they have already committed one by planning it. Conspiracy to rob, burgle, r@pe etc etc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"...police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Seems fair enough to me"

Ditto..

It's hardly pocket science..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think most people would assume phone tapping evidence or intercepted messages would be able to be used in court. But it seems it can't.

Personally, I think it is insane that it can't.

The messages and calls can be legally listened to by intelligence services, but can't be used in court. Madness imo."

If they are targeting a specific person or group and said people are subject to a RIPA authority then any evidence obtained can be used in court.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?

and thats why people are being butchered in the street. prevention is better than cure, would u not agree ? any link whatsoever no matter how small them string them up, or for the weak minded deporr them instantly"

So you would be happy with the police turning up and locking you up for something that someone thinks you may do?

You do know that what your talking about is exactly the sort of practises that IS use?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lkDomWhtSubBiCpleCouple
over a year ago

Somewhere / Everywhere /Kinksville


"...police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Seems fair enough to me

Ditto..

It's hardly pocket science..

"

Isn't this what seems to be emerging about the latest London attack? The police had knowledge but did nothing until a crime had been committed. 8 people dead later and they kill the perpetrators ....

I think I'd prefer the police had intervened way before.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Should Theresa May be successful.

"

No!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Seems fair enough to me

Ditto..

It's hardly pocket science..

Isn't this what seems to be emerging about the latest London attack? The police had knowledge but did nothing until a crime had been committed. 8 people dead later and they kill the perpetrators ....

I think I'd prefer the police had intervened way before. "

Do it like the Swiss... 1847 laws past which bans anyone resident of the country to serve in "foreign" military services ... If found serving, helping, aiding such "foreign" services the person or persons are immediately put under Military Laws [no public hearings] and are given if find guilty a minimum time of 8 years ... It is not a common known fact that Lenin formed his secret police on the principles of the "Fremden Polizei" [Foreign police] of Switzerland.. The Swiss laws there are clear..police have the powers to listen in to all communication means and to prosecute together with the authorities parties planning to commit a crime...

As some one said.. Britain and the EU have become a "soft spot" for anyone who has not the best of interests in their minds...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Seems fair enough to me

Ditto..

It's hardly pocket science..

Isn't this what seems to be emerging about the latest London attack? The police had knowledge but did nothing until a crime had been committed. 8 people dead later and they kill the perpetrators ....

I think I'd prefer the police had intervened way before.

Do it like the Swiss... 1847 laws past which bans anyone resident of the country to serve in "foreign" military services ... If found serving, helping, aiding such "foreign" services the person or persons are immediately put under Military Laws [no public hearings] and are given if find guilty a minimum time of 8 years ... It is not a common known fact that Lenin formed his secret police on the principles of the "Fremden Polizei" [Foreign police] of Switzerland.. The Swiss laws there are clear..police have the powers to listen in to all communication means and to prosecute together with the authorities parties planning to commit a crime...

As some one said.. Britain and the EU have become a "soft spot" for anyone who has not the best of interests in their minds..."

A free society will always be more vulnerable. Whatever laws are put in place, sooner or later someone malevolent will get through. How many of your freedoms are you willing to sacrifice for the illusion of safety?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"...police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Seems fair enough to me

Ditto..

It's hardly pocket science..

Isn't this what seems to be emerging about the latest London attack? The police had knowledge but did nothing until a crime had been committed. 8 people dead later and they kill the perpetrators ....

I think I'd prefer the police had intervened way before. "

There was no intelligence before, hence the level was reduced back down to severe..

There were no doubt mistakes made with allowing the guy in from bologna and the one who had been on the watch list is another question for the security services and their political masters..

Where there has been evidence of planning then arrests rightly so have been made or so we are being told..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lue Narwhal OP   Man
over a year ago

Iceland, but Aldi is closer..


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?

and thats why people are being butchered in the street. prevention is better than cure, would u not agree ? any link whatsoever no matter how small them string them up, or for the weak minded deporr them instantly

So you would be happy with the police turning up and locking you up for something that someone thinks you may do?

You do know that what your talking about is exactly the sort of practises that IS use?

"

If there is evidence of a crime and i implicated myself to committing that crime, then yes, I'd expect the police at my door. Afterall, I have admitted guilt.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Should Theresa May be successful, she is suggesting that there will be a shake up of civil rights laws.

These laws are there for our protection after all.. Why change them?

One rule that will inevitably change is one of the privacy laws, in particular the monitoring of phone and data conversations.

As it stands,any evidence gained by use of voice or data interception cannot be used in a UK prosecution case.

Surely this is madness, evidence that could convict someone of a crime they committed cannot be presented because it's apparently against the persons civil liberties..

Am I alone thinking that this loophole should be closed. The criminals have no respect for the rights of those they offend against so why should we offer rights to those that plan to do us?

We are too soft on criminals, with cases never making it to court just because the key evidence cannot be used.

Because of this daft rule, criminals are free to walk our streets with utter impunity while police have to wait for them to actually offend before they have the evidence to put them away.

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?

and thats why people are being butchered in the street. prevention is better than cure, would u not agree ? any link whatsoever no matter how small them string them up, or for the weak minded deporr them instantly

So you would be happy with the police turning up and locking you up for something that someone thinks you may do?

You do know that what your talking about is exactly the sort of practises that IS use?

If there is evidence of a crime and i implicated myself to committing that crime, then yes, I'd expect the police at my door. Afterall, I have admitted guilt. "

Agree that if is the all defining word, what some seem to be saying is 'they' should be locked up..

Where there is the evidence or strong intelligence that meets the required standard as the law says then yes take them off the street..

That has to apply across the board lest we end up with what we had post internment in the 70's and that didn't go well..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And one by one all freedoms are removed, in the belief that if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear. Until the thing you are doing, which was fine, is no longer allowed and then you too are a criminal.

"

this....using convinient excuses and slowly nibbling away at what we can and can't do, what they can do in terms of invading our privacy. as far as i'm concerned she can fuck right off. evil sith bitch.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i'm surprised ....

that we have any civil rights left to errode

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There's the concern that legislation could be brought in as a knee jerk reaction to a situation that's still not fully understood.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"There's the concern that legislation could be brought in as a knee jerk reaction to a situation that's still not fully understood. "

It's just what she wants, an excuse to ride a coach and horses through legislation that is not needed and not relevant to the recent events..

Using them as a smoke screen to frighten and delude people that it's needed and will stop other attack's by definition is out of order..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield


"i'm surprised ....

that we have any civil rights left to errode "

What can't you do?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"i'm surprised ....

that we have any civil rights left to errode

What can't you do?"

shoot handguns with my uncle any more...used to love doing that. all legal and at a club mind...but ya know

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!


"There's the concern that legislation could be brought in as a knee jerk reaction to a situation that's still not fully understood.

It's just what she wants, an excuse to ride a coach and horses through legislation that is not needed and not relevant to the recent events..

Using them as a smoke screen to frighten and delude people that it's needed and will stop other attack's by definition is out of order.."

There is an intelligently written article on the BBC which backs this up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"There's the concern that legislation could be brought in as a knee jerk reaction to a situation that's still not fully understood.

It's just what she wants, an excuse to ride a coach and horses through legislation that is not needed and not relevant to the recent events..

Using them as a smoke screen to frighten and delude people that it's needed and will stop other attack's by definition is out of order.."

agreed

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 07/06/17 20:53:25]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"i'm surprised ....

that we have any civil rights left to errode

What can't you do?"

jump around in the open air while listening to a series of repetative beats without having to pay someone for the privilege

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe


"

Erm... you do realise they're not actually criminals until the crime has been committed, don't you?"

Shirley that can't be true...

Cal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

actually, it really saddens me to see people backing the removal of any civil right on the basis of a slim to nothing promise it might help something somewhere along the line, to live in times where folk will give up their rights happily over some vague and extremely slim danger how sad that fear is that easily instilled in people. folk parroting their government and laying down their own freedoms because they're good little citizens and do nothing wrong and do what they're told, with their little jobs and mortgages, paying their tax and being good so of course, they have nothing to fear (they'll be proud of that when they say it too...watch 'em)

modern day Pharaohs have the slaves begging for work and slugs campaign for more salt.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a very slippery slope and great in principle until a relative or loved one has their civil liberties abused with little or no evidence.

The attacks happen and she starts bleeting on about ISPs, Facebook and WhatsApp. That's got fuck all to do with terrorists and everything to do with everyday, ordinary folk.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Also the lack of civil liberties and the lack of investigation into the ethics medial (I.e. No Leveson 2) =

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

1933

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lue Narwhal OP   Man
over a year ago

Iceland, but Aldi is closer..


"It's a very slippery slope and great in principle until a relative or loved one has their civil liberties abused with little or no evidence.

The attacks happen and she starts bleeting on about ISPs, Facebook and WhatsApp. That's got fuck all to do with terrorists and everything to do with everyday, ordinary folk.

"

The law will not change, the basis of evidence will still be necessary.

It just seems ludicrous that the rest of the civilised world is able to use evidence obtained by interception, Britain cannot..why? Because, yet again we are pandering to the lily livered liberals.

The British police are allowed to say "we were aware of some detail", that's it.. No more.

Tangible evidence, and it cannot be submitted.

We are tieing our police and prosecutors hands to satisfy the liberals.

Guilty people are getting away with crimes.

Imagine you were on the receiving end and the perpetrators of a crime against you got away with it even though there was the evidence proving categorically their guilt but because of a daft ruling, it couldn't be presented in a court of law..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

She's desperate and clutching at straws

We need to stop the causes, not tamper with things that are peripheral.

She's largely a failure, apart from getting pm job

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ulfilthmentMan
over a year ago

Just around the corner

I expect that if we allow things like overwatch of everyone's digital footprint including correspondence, social media use, and movements, that the outcome will be that the process side will be put out to tender and we can all look forward to Crapita or G4S holding plenty of data which they'll then be able to sell to advertisers or whoever they like.

Having 'nothing to hide' doesn't come into it. What law abiding citizens do is none of their business. There seem to have been plenty of opportunities to stop both recent attacks; we should be looking at why they weren't taken seriously.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Now let's think about this, there's a violent sex offender in your local area and the police are looking into it and are monitoring people in the area, and someone shares a bdsm photo over whatsapp. Suddenly while at work in comes the police and arrests you on suspicion of assault?

I know this is unlikely but were turning into 1984.

Also rip up one or two civil right laws because you've allowed it, then suddenly we're losing maternity leave and sick pay because it costs the country millions, would people agree to that?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I expect that if we allow things like overwatch of everyone's digital footprint including correspondence, social media use, and movements, that the outcome will be that the process side will be put out to tender and we can all look forward to Crapita or G4S holding plenty of data which they'll then be able to sell to advertisers or whoever they like.

Having 'nothing to hide' doesn't come into it. What law abiding citizens do is none of their business. There seem to have been plenty of opportunities to stop both recent attacks; we should be looking at why they weren't taken seriously."

Very good point I believe the Manchester attacker was reported because of his extremist views but wasn't dealt with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield


"Now let's think about this, there's a violent sex offender in your local area and the police are looking into it and are monitoring people in the area, and someone shares a bdsm photo over whatsapp. Suddenly while at work in comes the police and arrests you on suspicion of assault?

I know this is unlikely but were turning into 1984.

Also rip up one or two civil right laws because you've allowed it, then suddenly we're losing maternity leave and sick pay because it costs the country millions, would people agree to that?

"

First part of the post needs a lot of thought. Second part isn't linked.

On the first example, what if the attack had happened, and the police had phone tap of the guy describing what he did. That couldn't be used as evidence and he potentially could go free.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ilk_TreMan
over a year ago

Wherever the party is!

I don't think people realise that some of the practices we take for granted in the lifestyle may actually be illegal. Like to flirt over the phone a bit with your meets to get in the mood? Role play? BDSM? Age play?

Hands up who would honestly not mind having the contents of your phone/txt/whatsApp/email being perused by the security services.

Seriously, if you're even a slightly experimental swinger, civil liberties is paramount to us being able to conduct out hobby without fear of future prosecution.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think using the term 'lily livered liberal' in a supposed reasoned debate tells it's own story.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We don't have the resources to proactively monitor. With regards to the so called watch list it's thought it could be anywhere between 3000-20000 people.

Where does the resource to monitor them come from? What is the criteria for making the list?

You would assume that there is a prioritisation and grading criteria with the resources put into the most likely or most dangerous suspects.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heIcebreakersCouple
over a year ago

Cramlington

If only it were true that intercept data were protected under human rights law. It's not. The main argument for S17 of RIPA was that GCHQ &MI5 did not want to disclose how much they were harvesting or how they did it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think using the term 'lily livered liberal' in a supposed reasoned debate tells it's own story. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield


"We don't have the resources to proactively monitor. With regards to the so called watch list it's thought it could be anywhere between 3000-20000 people.

Where does the resource to monitor them come from? What is the criteria for making the list?

You would assume that there is a prioritisation and grading criteria with the resources put into the most likely or most dangerous suspects."

3000 are on the active watch list, as ongoing inquiries. 20,000 is people who have dropped off the watch list or are 'a person of interest' e.g has been flagged as extremist by being reported to hotline etc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ilk_TreMan
over a year ago

Wherever the party is!


"If only it were true that intercept data were protected under human rights law. It's not. The main argument for S17 of RIPA was that GCHQ &MI5 did not want to disclose how much they were harvesting or how they did it."

This. They are not called the "secret" service for nothing!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think most people would assume phone tapping evidence or intercepted messages would be able to be used in court. But it seems it can't.

Personally, I think it is insane that it can't.

The messages and calls can be legally listened to by intelligence services, but can't be used in court. Madness imo.

If they are targeting a specific person or group and said people are subject to a RIPA authority then any evidence obtained can be used in court. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aughtyinguMan
over a year ago

swindon

Thing is I really doubt there's much planning on the knife/car attacks anyways

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 08/06/17 11:25:30]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Those who plotted to bring down planes with liquids in bottles (2006/7?) lay down in parks whispering with hands over mouths to avoid being lip read. Do you think they'd go to that trouble if they could just discuss their plots over the phone?

Considering it's well known Facebook can read your whatsapp messages to target you with advertising, terrorists will almost certainly not trust this service. Anything communications related that goes through a western intelligence agency country is automatically not trusted generally anyway.

Agencies like NSA and GCHQ live for breaking encryption and prefer people to think a service is secure' than know it's not.

Recent cases have shown what's really needed in police numbers on the street following up local intelligence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What I mean is we are drowning in intelligence and information. Add more hay to the stack will just add to the confusion.

Manchester bomber should have been harassed using existing anti terror laws every time he went shopping.

Police numbers on streets working through it all is what's needed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There's supposed to be a difference between civil rights and civil liberties.... unfortunately there isn't.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People are far too eager to give up their privacy and freedoms for the sake of security.

Such as using a terror attack to push through draconian regulations on the internet which have been expressly desired before the fact.

It's a classic Reichstag Fire move.

(#godwinslaw)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What I mean is we are drowning in intelligence and information. Add more hay to the stack will just add to the confusion.

Manchester bomber should have been harassed using existing anti terror laws every time he went shopping.

Police numbers on streets working through it all is what's needed."

I've has similar thoughts. Putting in legislation to compensate for cutting the law enforcement and security budget? I'm not sure about that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados


"And one by one all freedoms are removed, in the belief that if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear. Until the thing you are doing, which was fine, is no longer allowed and then you too are a criminal.

"

Like posting an image on here of squiring, fisting or face sitting. Yup, Theresa May has already made that illegal. What will be next?

-Matt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top