Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html en-gb 30 Mon 02 Mar 2015 20:03:28 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html DibbySpot http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=99#comment581 Yes they should be abandoned. They do not work and government has more important things to put their time into. Mon 10 Jan 2011 08:52:54 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=99#comment580 97. At 2:38pm on 03 Jan 2011, Willo wrote:Ministers will not be forgiven if the proposed abolition of control orders on terror suspects leads to another 7 July-style attack...What a perverse way of looking at the situation. If there is another attack it will be totally the fault of those who plan it and carry it out. Ministers, the police and the security services are trying to protect us and, by and large, they succeed. Occasional failure is inevitable and should not lead to criticism.============================================Surely no more perverse than people criticising the police when various murderers have been arrested, questioned and released on several occasions, and before their final arrest have gone on to murder more people? Mon 10 Jan 2011 08:20:31 GMT+1 Sandra http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=99#comment579 Definitely not. If these people are a danger to society, they should be locked up in a secure institution because clearly they are not right in the head but they should be locked up in the country or origin and not at our expense. If they are British they should also be locked up but not given any rights, Locked up should mean locked up, after all they are prepared to take away innocent peoples rights to live. Mon 10 Jan 2011 07:50:35 GMT+1 policeturner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=99#comment578 Yes these orders should be abolished and the perpertrator taken to the nearest airport and deported back to their own country and if they wish to fight the deportation, they can do that from their own country, not here where they languish in comfort still able to cause harm to us. Those who are from this country should be imprisoned immediatly for life and all human rights removed from them the same way as our human rights would have been removed by them if they got away with their crime. Sun 09 Jan 2011 20:31:11 GMT+1 greade http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=99#comment577 These laws should not be scrapped. It is up to the country where troublemakers are operating to safeguard everyone's future. Scrapping these laws make us open to more terrorist threats. Sun 09 Jan 2011 14:17:25 GMT+1 haripotir http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=98#comment576 We have been hit twice by the actions of home grown terrorists. I applaud and stand amazed that our security services with great patience and vigilance, how they achieve a "hit" on a terrorist cell anywhere within our island and feel that they are making our lives so much safer against these madmen wanting to inflict pain and death upon us. If the control orders are lifted and this crazy coalition government apply the soft touch tactics, as they intend to impose I cannot believe our government have forgotton the damage and injuries inflicted in the 7th July tradgedy. The coalition Government should be put under these control orders to keep them in check before they make any more dangerous statements as this. Sun 09 Jan 2011 12:28:25 GMT+1 FatMao http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=98#comment575 This post has been Removed Fri 07 Jan 2011 14:53:05 GMT+1 FatMao http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=98#comment574 This post has been Removed Fri 07 Jan 2011 14:44:47 GMT+1 FatMao http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=98#comment573 This post has been Removed Fri 07 Jan 2011 14:41:42 GMT+1 perkinwellbeck http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=98#comment572 i do not think think they will be foolish enough to srap control orders.it his the wrong time and the wrong place to comply to this demand from a man who is trying to save face,at the expense of the british people. we have to remain on our guard against a existent threat from musilims under the order of jihad.that is the reality of this point in time and we have to deal with it.as for human and civil rights,there is no one more supportive and impassioned towards an englishmans rights,infact a bill of human rights for great britain is long over due,but!we have tobe practical and level headed about the situation we are in,it is our duty towards ourselfs and fellow citizens to protect our country. it is similar to the argument on multi and unilateral disarmament and i think it is fair to say multi was the correct way.i think it will be the same in the keeping of the control orders history will condone the action. Fri 07 Jan 2011 11:28:42 GMT+1 Casitian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=98#comment571 wow a lib/dem minister says the MP,S wouldn,t forgive themselvesthey never have about any thingany anyway what good would it do if they didthe brit way of governing is that you can be the worstincompetent idot and walk away from anything done without judgementand penalty. Fri 07 Jan 2011 10:30:26 GMT+1 Casitian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=97#comment570 yes scrap them waste of time and money and police Fri 07 Jan 2011 10:25:28 GMT+1 John Adair http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=97#comment569 This post has been Removed Thu 06 Jan 2011 16:52:24 GMT+1 Imatroll99 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=97#comment568 If our criminal justice system was anything other that what it is now I would say scrap the system. As things are, our justice system is broken so we must keep as many elements of policing and associated control as we can until we find a political leader who is prepared establish justice that is truly to be feared by criminals and more importantly by would be criminals. (Cells that cannot be burned down, No TV, etc etc). Thu 06 Jan 2011 16:46:04 GMT+1 Centres for Stuff I Heard from Some Guy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=97#comment567 567. At 4:34pm on 06 Jan 2011, Masons Arms wrote:516. At 9:03pm on 05 Jan 2011, FatMao wrote:515. At 8:17pm on 05 Jan 2011, Rattler wrote:FJ Glos seems to be worried about the likes of Hitler coming to power and yet he whines about the 'rights' of a group of people who are the closest thing to active Nazis that we have in the world today. The Taliban were a bunch of gangsters who terrorised the population, denied women the most basic human rights and set up terrorist training camps which were attended by British muslims. It is naive to think that the courts can deal with the terrorist threat. We are at war with these people and we can no more deal with them through the courts than we could have dealt with Hitler through the courts. ______________I agree, had Hitler been an Islamic terrorist, there's a lot of people on this HYS who'd be hard pressed to give him even an ASBO!//Good point. If the country had been daft enough to accept large numbers of German immigrants in the 30s, there would have been the same kind of resentment as mass immigration and multiculturalism provoke nowadays.Most people would have been saying that they didn't like having large numbers of foreigners here, competing for jobs and services. Most people would have been worried about the threat to our own way of life and culture posed by the large influx of foreigners. Most people would have foreseen that the ideology of the foreigners wasn't turning Germany into a particularly 'nice' country, and would have foreseen that it would have the same effect on this one.A small minority, the predecessors of today's multicultural 'liberals', would have criticised the majority as being 'little Englanders', who should stop reading the Mail, and stop resenting the Germans because they talk funny, eat weird food, and dress oddly.But Britain did accept a lot of German immigrants in the 1930s: they were largely Jewish or political refugees (eg communists) escaping the Nazi repression. It also took large numbers of immigrants and exiles from most european countries as they were invaded by the Nazis.At the time I think you would have found "The Mail" advocating not letting these people in and to have negotiated with the Nazis. Thu 06 Jan 2011 16:44:46 GMT+1 Masons Arms http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=97#comment566 516. At 9:03pm on 05 Jan 2011, FatMao wrote:515. At 8:17pm on 05 Jan 2011, Rattler wrote:FJ Glos seems to be worried about the likes of Hitler coming to power and yet he whines about the 'rights' of a group of people who are the closest thing to active Nazis that we have in the world today. The Taliban were a bunch of gangsters who terrorised the population, denied women the most basic human rights and set up terrorist training camps which were attended by British muslims. It is naive to think that the courts can deal with the terrorist threat. We are at war with these people and we can no more deal with them through the courts than we could have dealt with Hitler through the courts. ______________I agree, had Hitler been an Islamic terrorist, there's a lot of people on this HYS who'd be hard pressed to give him even an ASBO!//Good point. If the country had been daft enough to accept large numbers of German immigrants in the 30s, there would have been the same kind of resentment as mass immigration and multiculturalism provoke nowadays.Most people would have been saying that they didn't like having large numbers of foreigners here, competing for jobs and services. Most people would have been worried about the threat to our own way of life and culture posed by the large influx of foreigners. Most people would have foreseen that the ideology of the foreigners wasn't turning Germany into a particularly 'nice' country, and would have foreseen that it would have the same effect on this one.A small minority, the predecessors of today's multicultural 'liberals', would have criticised the majority as being 'little Englanders', who should stop reading the Mail, and stop resenting the Germans because they talk funny, eat weird food, and dress oddly. Thu 06 Jan 2011 16:34:43 GMT+1 mildenhalljohn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=97#comment565 The amount of people who are affected by these orders are miniscule beyond words, however the carnage, destruction and deaths caused by some of these people is beyond description. The vast majority of people in this country are at the mercy of these evil vile murderers who use all the human right laws to avoid restrictions whilst they prepare for their next atrocity. We live in a imperfect world when we restrict these peoples movements, to let them lose on a innocent public however,would be a totaly reckless and irresponsible move to make. Remember, innocent people have rights as well, infinitly more than the murdering cowardly scum do. Thu 06 Jan 2011 16:25:38 GMT+1 bigsammyb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=96#comment564 "533. At 06:40am on 06 Jan 2011, FatMao wrote:Hasn't there been a substantial Jewish presence in Israel long before there were 'muslims' or even Palestinians then? (You claim to 'know' history)Enjoy this video clip!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctUJb69cxoc"Reliegon is irrelevant. Jews living in israel today are europeans not arabs.Ergo they have no right to live in that land. What reliegon they adhere to makes no difference whatsoever. IT was a white invasion and a process of ethnic cleansing of the native population. Thu 06 Jan 2011 16:07:12 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=96#comment563 562. At 3:29pm on 06 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:@Total Mass Reatin.I believe most cases control orders are for foriegn citizens who have or alleged affiliations to terrorists groups.Sadly such evidence against these people are inadmissable in UK courts or the intelligence to sensitive for the public domain.In a idle world that you preach it would great to use the justice system but sadly the world is not perfect and control orders are needed to counter potential threats.Again this case were this is seen as government trying to excert to much power and not seen as what is best for the national interest.Nope, it just requires UK courts to accept intercept evidence (wire taps, email interceptions etc) just as most other countries do. Thu 06 Jan 2011 15:36:03 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=96#comment562 560. At 3:06pm on 06 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:554. At 2:03pm on 06 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote:553. At 1:44pm on 06 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:I no doubt Assange will use the HR act to argue that his case is politically motivated and thus grind his proceedings to a halt."Assange choose the UK for that very reason.Why? Do UK courts interpret the ECHR in a different way than the other 46 signatory countries?"I believe so.A prime example is Italys policy on Mafia Bosses.It can be compared to American supermax system,a system they wont let Abu Hamza go to.I believe the ECHR has already stated it is illegal yet Italy has continued with such policy.The problem with ECHR is they look at the cases as governments trying to excert to much power instead of looking at them in what best for that countries national interest.Ah no, you have chosen an example where the requirements of the ECHR are clear but the national government involved chooses to ignore them. What I asked was whether UK courts interpret the ECHR differently from the European Court of Human Rights or the national courts of other ECHR signatories.If you are advocating that the UK government ignores its obligations under international agreements in its application of the Human Rights Act then you are advocating that the rule of law is a disposable principle in how we are governed. That is a principle you relinquish at huge risk. Thu 06 Jan 2011 15:32:01 GMT+1 panchopablo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=96#comment561 @Total Mass Reatin.I believe most cases control orders are for foriegn citizens who have or alleged affiliations to terrorists groups.Sadly such evidence against these people are inadmissable in UK courts or the intelligence to sensitive for the public domain.In a idle world that you preach it would great to use the justice system but sadly the world is not perfect and control orders are needed to counter potential threats.Again this case were this is seen as government trying to excert to much power and not seen as what is best for the national interest. Thu 06 Jan 2011 15:29:45 GMT+1 Graham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=96#comment560 We should do all we can to protect the country and its citizens. We all know that these people are either:Straight forward traitors that are British and if unchecked, their behaviour could result in them carrying out crimal actions or British citizens that have committed terrorist actions abroad and cannot be extradited because of dubious "human rights laws".Terrorists that are stranded here because the cannot be returned to their own country because of dubious "human rights laws".Easy money for legal aid "human rights" lawyers that exploit dubious "human rights laws".The good friends of wishy-washy liberals and anarchistic social workers party thugs. Thu 06 Jan 2011 15:23:01 GMT+1 panchopablo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=96#comment559 554. At 2:03pm on 06 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote:553. At 1:44pm on 06 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:I no doubt Assange will use the HR act to argue that his case is politically motivated and thus grind his proceedings to a halt."Assange choose the UK for that very reason.Why? Do UK courts interpret the ECHR in a different way than the other 46 signatory countries?"I believe so.A prime example is Italys policy on Mafia Bosses.It can be compared to American supermax system,a system they wont let Abu Hamza go to.I believe the ECHR has already stated it is illegal yet Italy has continued with such policy.The problem with ECHR is they look at the cases as governments trying to excert to much power instead of looking at them in what best for that countries national interest. Thu 06 Jan 2011 15:06:58 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=95#comment558 557. At 2:33pm on 06 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:@Phosgene.No,are way of life is underattack from a terrorist organisation with worldwide reach whos very ideology despises the society we live in.Your paranoia that government attempts to combat terrorism is some ploy to enslave us all is rather deluded and lets the real enemy of a free society escape.This is 2011,not 1948,the world has changed,it is time the HR act changed with it so it no longer prevents a government doing its duty of protecting its citizens.If Someones right to life is infringed because we put the right of those who committed the attack before them i dare say the government who did that would not remain in power very long.Can you give any examples of anyone who has committed an attack that risks the lives of ordinary citizens having their rights put before those citizens? The state did not allow the 7/7 or 21/7 bombers to proceed because they had "rights" but because they were (as far as we know) unaware of their intended actions. The 7/7 bombers did not survive and the 21/7 bombers have been brought to justice. Other conspiracies to attack citizens have had such plotter brought to justice (as far as we are aware). If there is evidence that those subject to control orders are conspiring then they too should be brought to justice. The HRA does not prevent the government in its duty to protect citizens. What it does is ensure all of us are treated according to the norms of a civilised society. You might, one day, value those rights.P.S,the only two people who continually like to reflect on my parents being immigrants is yourself and Total Mass?.When your parents sought refuge in this country, they accepted the democratic and legal norms of this society. To argue that others seeking refuge in this society today should not receive that same civilised treatment is rather like someone buying a new house on a new housing estate and then objecting to planning permission to build more new houses in the field next door. Thu 06 Jan 2011 14:51:06 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=95#comment557 555. At 2:12pm on 06 Jan 2011, Rattler wrote:The second paragraph was a false analogy so I ignored it. Why is the actual experience of detaining suspected terrorists and suspected terrorist sympathisers in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and the tragic consequences of those decisions a "false analogy". It sounds like you ignore any facts that contradict your prejudices. Thu 06 Jan 2011 14:36:14 GMT+1 panchopablo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=95#comment556 @Phosgene.No,are way of life is underattack from a terrorist organisation with worldwide reach whos very ideology despises the society we live in.Your paranoia that government attempts to combat terrorism is some ploy to enslave us all is rather deluded and lets the real enemy of a free society escape.This is 2011,not 1948,the world has changed,it is time the HR act changed with it so it no longer prevents a government doing its duty of protecting its citizens.If Someones right to life is infringed because we put the right of those who committed the attack before them i dare say the government who did that would not remain in power very long.P.S,the only two people who continually like to reflect on my parents being immigrants is yourself and Total Mass?.@Minsa.Zionism has it problems with rascism and in many cases religious superiority.You want to call Zionism another form of Nazism that is fine but i would suggest you look at the attempts of ethnic cleansing by AQ of Iraqi Christians.Also,look at what is happening to Coptic Christians in Eygpt and also Christians in many Arab and Islamic countries where they cannot worship or build places of worship.Then their is the fact that these countries call themslves Islamic states,surely that is rascism against the minority groups?.Surely that is superiority aligned with Nazism?. Thu 06 Jan 2011 14:33:51 GMT+1 Centres for Stuff I Heard from Some Guy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=95#comment555 555. At 2:12pm on 06 Jan 2011, Rattler wrote:Jason Mead wrote: The garlic/vampire analogy was making a serious point in a flippant way. You chose merely to see the flippant side and ignored the second paragraph.The second paragraph was a false analogy so I ignored it. I don't think you should be flippant about these issues but then you care more about Islamic terrorists than ordinary citizens so I guess that explains why you felt humour was in order. Bored with your cosy liberal elite thinking now so cheerio. What possible justification can you have for the libellous statement: "then you care more about Islamic terrorists than ordinary citizens"?Just because someone has certain principles that uphold the rights of individuals to receive civilsed treatment under the law does not mean they defend the opinions and actions of those individuals.You clearly do not believe in the supremacy of the rule of law so cannot believe in democracy! (The first is a pre-requisite for the second in case that linkage is lost on you). Thu 06 Jan 2011 14:33:30 GMT+1 Rattler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=95#comment554 Jason Mead wrote: The garlic/vampire analogy was making a serious point in a flippant way. You chose merely to see the flippant side and ignored the second paragraph.The second paragraph was a false analogy so I ignored it. I don't think you should be flippant about these issues but then you care more about Islamic terrorists than ordinary citizens so I guess that explains why you felt humour was in order. Bored with your cosy liberal elite thinking now so cheerio. Thu 06 Jan 2011 14:12:06 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=95#comment553 553. At 1:44pm on 06 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:I no doubt Assange will use the HR act to argue that his case is politically motivated and thus grind his proceedings to a halt.Assange choose the UK for that very reason.Why? Do UK courts interpret the ECHR in a different way than the other 46 signatory countries? Thu 06 Jan 2011 14:03:55 GMT+1 panchopablo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=94#comment552 535. At 08:36am on 06 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote:"Why did the "rules change"? This enemy is no more threatening than the Nazi regime that resulted in the deaths of over 50 million people?."Imagine the Nazi regime facing justice today.Do you think the harsh punishment inflicted upon them in the years following WW2 would still happen?.You know what,i think it would,the people would be no more concerned with the HR of Nazi personnel as they are with AQ operatives with intentions to commit mass murder."By the way, the EU arrest warrant process makes it much easier to send Assange to Sweden to face accusations. I guess you approve of that? I do too, actually."I no doubt Assange will use the HR act to argue that his case is politically motivated and thus grind his proceedings to a halt.Assange choose the UK for that very reason. Thu 06 Jan 2011 13:44:07 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=94#comment551 "There is a naivety on here that none of this could happen here."Quite right, Total Mass Retain. I'd like to see habeus corpus back, personally.You know the obvious conclusion to thay is? That we are one and the same person.I call that great reasoning. Thu 06 Jan 2011 13:37:10 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=94#comment550 549. At 12:58pm on 06 Jan 2011, potatolord wrote:"506. At 5:36pm on 05 Jan 2011, Giselle wrote:Clegg said today (05/01/2011) "Of course our absolute top priority must always remain the safety of the British people but we mustn't do that by sacrificing traditional British liberties which have always made this country very great.""Nice quote!So, the safety of the British people is not the priority then?Hahaha! Nice one, Cleggy.The way to interpret this is that "traditional British liberties" are, in fact, the "top priority". The safety of the British people is a very high priority but not at the cost of that "top priority".You need to remember that the Nazis, Mussolini, Lenin/Stalin and regimes as different as Mao's China, Pinochet's Chile, the Junta's Argentina, Franco's Spain, Greece between 1967 and 1974 etc all justified removal of "traditional liberties" to protect the "safety" of the people of their country. There is a naivety on here that none of this could happen here. Why do you think that? Thu 06 Jan 2011 13:13:17 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=94#comment549 528. At 01:28am on 06 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:"@Phosgene.This 2011,not 1948.That old relic you so dearly cling onto is of a bygone era in which the threat was based on preventing another Nazi Germany,not terrorism.The world did change after 9/11,the HR act has not and that is why we are fighting terrorism with are hands tied behind backs."----------Jeez. You really do not understand rights. Rights, by definition CANNOT be relics.Funnily enough, we still use the budern of proof, juries and laws -- showing your "world did change after 9/11" is a panchopabloperception.Like all other people who trot out the "world did change after 9/11" nonsense, you neither undestand or believe in the rule of law or understand what a human right is.Ironically, you support dismantling our way of life to -- hee hee -- preserve our way of life. Osama bin Laden hasn't got the power to do this: our politicians with the support of the misguided and scared do have this power.And as the son of immigrants to this country, I would hope you respected its institutions a bit more than that. Thu 06 Jan 2011 13:08:13 GMT+1 Black_And_Proud http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=94#comment548 "506. At 5:36pm on 05 Jan 2011, Giselle wrote:Clegg said today (05/01/2011) "Of course our absolute top priority must always remain the safety of the British people but we mustn't do that by sacrificing traditional British liberties which have always made this country very great.""Nice quote!So, the safety of the British people is not the priority then?Hahaha! Nice one, Cleggy. Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:58:57 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=93#comment547 532. At 06:33am on 06 Jan 2011, FatMao wrote:'"It's pretty easy to spot attempts to mislead the British public" I agree, and I count your posts among those attempts!'----------You can count them as a cheese and pickle sandwich for all I care: keep buying the patronising journalism and wondering where people who do facts get their facts from.Funnily enough, if we do a fact count per post, I win.Therefore you're right -- in your own mind. Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:57:59 GMT+1 minsa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=93#comment546 528. At 01:28am on 06 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:@Minsa.Is Zionism the same as Nazism?........No.>>> A thought experimentHypothetically Germany moves to kill and expel Jews from their homes in Germany to create a racially based state. Would this be the same as nazism?Obviously it would - it is exactly what the Nazis did.We can change 2 parameters here: the perpetrators and the victims. Victims first.Gysies instead of Jews - another no brainer because the Nazis did that too. However, it is fair to generalise to any ethnic group. It would be akin to Nazism if the victims happened to be Africans, Indians, Chinese. The underlying principle remains - all that changes is the particular persecuted group. This is true even if the victims are Arabs.We can generalise further by changing the perpetrator. If it were Britain rather than Germany which was killing and expelling Jews this would be akin to Nazism. So it would be if we persectued any ethnic group to created a racially based state, a British homeland. This includes persecuting Arabs.This leads us to any ethnic group killing and expelling from their homes any other ethnic group to create a racially based state is behaving like the Nazis. This is exactly what the Jews did in Palestine: they killed and ethnically cleansed Palestinian Arabs from their homes in order to create a Jewish state.The general rule is not: any ethnic group (except Jews) killing and expelling from their homes any other ethnic group (except Arabs) to create a racially based state is behaving like the Nazis.Racism (like terrorism) should be defined according to the nature of the act, not according to the race of the perpetrator. Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:55:32 GMT+1 Rays a Larf http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=93#comment545 What do 'control orders' do. Well according to latent thinking, they keep suspects of terrorist activities under control......which is all well and good but it fails to stop contact with others who are not under control. I would prefer they are scrapped and anybody intent on nogood is watched very carefully and then arrested, and summarily deported from whence they came. No courts need be involved, as anyone intent on killing anybody in this country should not be here. If someone screams 'Human Rights' my human rights are to live peaceably without fear and condition. If anything does happen to my family I know actually what will happen to the perpertrators and anyone associated with them.We used to have a way with criminals of all sorts and we are pussy footing around these days and need to go backwards. Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:52:23 GMT+1 Centres for Stuff I Heard from Some Guy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=93#comment544 543. At 11:43am on 06 Jan 2011, Rattler wrote:Jason Mead: I am mystified by your arguments about garlic and vampires. Vampires aren't real whereas Islamic terrorism is real. I really can't understand how anyone could spend so much time defending the rights of people who are out to kill us especially with such fatuous arguments.This should have been pretty obvious: doing something irrespective of whether it is efficacious or not just to make people feel that something is being done is not a good reason for doing it. Doing something that is not efficacious and has unintended consequnces (such as acting as a recruiting sergeant for the cause you are trying to suppress) is stupid, especially if it reduces the democratic credentials of the society doing it (as happened in Northern Ireland and also in South Africa and elsewhere). The garlic/vampire analogy was making a serious point in a flippant way. You chose merely to see the flippant side and ignored the second paragraph. Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:34:19 GMT+1 Rattler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=93#comment543 Nic121: You make a very good point about control orders. There are large numbers of Islamic extremists out there. The fact that the authorities weren't able to monitor the 7/7 bombers because they simply don't have the resources to monitor them all is testament to the fact. Besides I don't see how any sane person can oppose control orders being used against known terrorists who have not been brought to trial and have escaped justice simply because they have run away from the country where the crime was committed. Thu 06 Jan 2011 11:55:11 GMT+1 Rattler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=93#comment542 Dominic: There is no reason for Paul to fear being put under a restraining order, he hasn't as far as I know attended a terrorist training camp or declared holy war on the West. Jason Mead: I am mystified by your arguments about garlic and vampires. Vampires aren't real whereas Islamic terrorism is real. I really can't understand how anyone could spend so much time defending the rights of people who are out to kill us especially with such fatuous arguments. Thu 06 Jan 2011 11:43:30 GMT+1 Nic121 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=92#comment541 Quite often you find that it’s not the rule/regulation/law itself that’s the problem…it’s how a certain rule/regulation/law is interpreted and acted upon by the appropriate authority.Going off on a slight tangent, Health & Safety Laws/Regulations are a prime example of this. The laws themselves are well-meaning and do protect us to the appropriate level without going overboard…as long as some overzealous jobsworth doesn’t come along and apply it with a complete lack of commonsense and abuse his/her position of authority.To that extent, as long as control orders are used in the way that they are intended i.e. on people we know to have strong links to known terrorists coupled with abnormal behaviour and activities that are a serious cause for concern, such as buying a large amount of fertiliser and/or other such substances even though they are not involved in agriculture or learning to fly planes but not learning to land them, then they can be effective in helping to protect us without infringing the ‘civil liberties/rights’ of your average law-abiding citizen. HOWEVER, I do understand that these laws are open to abuse and I absolutely agree that if there is reasonable evidence that control orders are being used on innocent law-abiding individuals for which they were not intended, then this is unacceptable and either it should be completely removed or tighter controls put in place to ensure it can’t happen again.My opinion is that it is highly unlikely that control orders would be used on innocent law-abiding individuals with no/very weak links to known terrorists. This is not based on some naïve notion that our authorities don’t ever abuse their powers…but on the basis that control orders are very costly and time/resource-consuming , so the authorities simply would bother wasting time, money and resources on any old tom, dick or harry like you and me. Thu 06 Jan 2011 11:23:58 GMT+1 Masons Arms http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=92#comment540 //510. At 6:15pm on 05 Jan 2011, Brian Brown wrote:If you have the absurdity of foreign terrorists who cannot be deported because it is not safe in their own country, or British born citizens who think that their backward mediaeval religion gives them the right to kill Britons, then what is the alternative? The next attack(and it will come) on Britons and overseas visitors will see a backlash from the majority, innocent as well as guilty.//There seem to be a number of problems with control orders. Chief among them, they just don't seem to work very well.Maybe what's really needed is- special courts, in which all participants are approved and security cleared- expulsion of 'undesirable aliens', along with their families, regardless of consequences to themselves- internment for those who can't be expelled, for whatever reason.Britain does need certain standards, but it doesn't need to apply the same standards to non-Brits as it does to its own people. Thu 06 Jan 2011 10:31:37 GMT+1 Centres for Stuff I Heard from Some Guy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=92#comment539 539. At 10:09am on 06 Jan 2011, Alan Hammond wrote:If these controls ARE removed and it goes wromg (Which it will )Then the Government will start bleeting and looking for somebody or something to BLAMELEAVE the controls were they are it does NO harm to have this control,better than more bombs etcThat's an argument for us all to put garlic around our doors and windows to keep vampires out. Certainly, I've not had a single vampire enter the house since I've done that.You might like to consider the experince of Detention without Trial in Northern Ireland and the rate of deaths and terrorist acts before it was introduced compared with during and after before concluding such controls do "NO harm". Thu 06 Jan 2011 10:17:14 GMT+1 Alan Hammond http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=92#comment538 If these controls ARE removed and it goes wromg (Which it will )Then the Government will start bleeting and looking for somebody or something to BLAMELEAVE the controls were they are it does NO harm to have this control,better than more bombs etc Thu 06 Jan 2011 10:09:22 GMT+1 Centres for Stuff I Heard from Some Guy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=92#comment537 506. At 5:36pm on 05 Jan 2011, Giselle wrote:Clegg said today (05/01/2011) "Of course our absolute top priority must always remain the safety of the British people but we mustn't do that by sacrificing traditional British liberties which have always made this country very great."Can you ever hope to get anything right, Clegg? My traditional British liberty means being free to go where I want in my own country without constantly thinking there is someone out there wanting to harm me. I agree with Control Orders, but they need to be strengthened - keep these people out of the way of the general public.But there are lots of people out there whose actions could harm you: those speeding motorists, those tailgating you in the outside lane of the motorway, those who regard making a phone call when they are driving as a basic human right, those who believe they drive better after a few drinks, those who insist on smoking wherever they wish to. These impose much greater risk on your life than anyone subject to a cutrrent control order or those you think should be subject to tighter ones. Should BMW drivers (who tend to show the attributes I just outlined more than other drivers) be subject to control orders just to keep the rest of us safe?The law and civil rights is a fine balance between the rights we individually want to behave as we please and the constraints imposed on others to prevent them harming us. In the end we have to accept that we all have to be subject to the same constraints and cannot reasonably ask that others have constraints imposed on them that we are not willing to have imposed on us. At least without very good reason, such as evidence that they have broken those constraints and should be brought to justice. Thu 06 Jan 2011 10:06:54 GMT+1 BertTrotter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=92#comment536 Whatever decision is made it must be based on facts and not be a compromise to appease all parts of The Coalition. The security of this country must not be decided by a fear of losing backing from some of either parties MPs. Thu 06 Jan 2011 09:50:45 GMT+1 Dominic http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=91#comment535 5. At 11:38am on 03 Jan 2011, Paul J Weighell wrote:"Errors made when erring on the side of civil liberty are too dangerous when mass terrorism may be the result. The precautionary principle in this case then must be that control orders, imprisonment without civil levels of evidence and other waivers of normal civil law and human rights are a common sense requirement to deal with terrorism."So, err on the side of caution, hey Paul? Lock 'em up, just to be safe. I'm wondering though, if you'd have that view if you were locked up as a terror suspect (NB suspect), just to be on the safe side? Probably not. I think you'd be on the phone to civil rights lawyers pretty sharpish. Thu 06 Jan 2011 09:45:40 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=91#comment534 512. At 6:39pm on 05 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:498. At 4:14pm on 05 Jan 2011, Phosgene.You and alter ego are correct that a lot of the HR act is to prevent state brutality but there in lies the problem.The HR act was created after WW2 to prevent another Nazi Germany and never took into account terrorism,especially modern day terrorism.The rules changed on 9/11,we now face a enemy with no remorse and no care for the death toll,in fact the more the better as far as they are concerned and so measures such as control orders are a nessacery evil to up hold the most important human right.......the right to life.The moral highground and a old relic wont win this war,in fact its hastening are loss.So yes i understand human rights and understand that joe public rights come before the right of terrorists.501. At 4:24pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain.Why is it that now in this country that wanted posters cannot be issued for suspected criminals as it infringes on there human rights?.This just one of many examples of the criminal justice system being hampered by the HR act.As regard to Abu Hamza,"In past cases, the ECHR has stopped the UK deporting suspected foreign terrorists to places where they might be executed or tortured. In the Masri case this has been extended to refusing extradition to a country where he might be jailed for life and where the prison regime is judged to be too harsh. The ruling would apply to any extradition to the US unless American authorities can guarantee in advance that the suspect will not be incarcerated in a so-called supermax prison. The court said there should be further legal argument on whether life without parole would breach the suspects’ human rights."Hmm,isnt this a case of the HR act preventing the justice system,well the American justice system you agree is much like the UK.503. At 4:35pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain.Even hardened supporters of the EU admit the treaty is the same sa the constitution bar the name.The fact such an important change in the EU workings where passed without the consent of over 300 million+ European citizens shows the contempt and undemocratic system the EU is.oh,Didnt Ireland want there abortion laws not be infringed yet is now facing action from you guessed it,the European court of human rights.2011,hopefully the year the EU comes crumbling down.If you think "Phosgene" and I are alter egoes then I assert that you, "SystemF" and "MagicKirin" and (possibly) "The Bloke" are the same. after all you bandy around the term "left wing" to all and sundry just because they disagree with you. The main reason I don't think this can be so is because those other three appear to know how to use "there", "their" and "they're" correctly, but then this may be a ploy. I think you will find that whereas Phosgene and I may well closely agree on this topic, you will not find such close agreement on (eg) economic matters.On your last point on Irish abortion laws, once again you confuse the EU with the European Court on Human Rights: the ECHR is NOT an EU institution and Ireland would have to abide by the decisions of the ECHR whether it was in the EU or not. This particular topic is very similar to anti-abortion US states having to abide by the "Roe v Wade" Supreme Court ruling whether they like it or not. It also shows the dilemma in Human Rights law on the rights of the living versus the rights of the unborn. That is beyond the scope of this HYS.As for "Even hardened supporters of the EU admit the treaty is the same sa the constitution bar the name." Did I not agree that two documents whose intention is to consolidate all the prior EEC/EU treaties into one will look substantially the same? You have not acknowledged this basic fact, which (together with your posts on how much UK law is determined in Brussels etc) suggests you are guided solely by tabloid rhetoric. That 95%+ of the Lisbon treaty was already enacted across the EU and would remain in force whether or not Lisbon was ratified or not. As for extradition to the USA: yes, the Human Rights protocols do make it harder to extradite anyone to countries with capital punishment and other harsh punishment. The US justice system is like the UK one in its philosophy (judicial processes, common law principles etc) but not in its punishments (at least no longer) and we can be reasonably sure that the conviction of an accused person can be trusted as much as the UK system. However, it does not make it impossible and in the meantime such accused persons remain incarcerated whilst the extradition process is pursued. Remember these same rights prevent you being extradited to some authoritarian regime with lower standards of evidence and which imposes "cruel and unusual punishments". By the way, the EU arrest warrant process makes it much easier to send Assange to Sweden to face accusations. I guess you approve of that? I do too, actually.The rules changed on 9/11,we now face a enemy with no remorse and no care for the death toll,in fact the more the better as far as they are concerned and so measures such as control orders are a nessacery evil to up hold the most important human right.......the right to life.Why did the "rules change"? This enemy is no more threatening than the Nazi regime that resulted in the deaths of over 50 million people?The moral highground and a old relic wont win this war,in fact its hastening are loss.How so?So yes i understand human rights and understand that joe public rights come before the right of terrorists.No you clearly don't. The rights of "joe public" are protected by the criminal law. The rights of "joe public" are not protected by undermining our standards of justice and individual liberty. This is on both points of principle and pragmatism: when detention without trial was brought in in Northern Ireland to remove people who were thought to be a threat, the result was a huge increase in recruits to terrorist organisations and a prolongation of the "Troubles". 508. At 5:47pm on 05 Jan 2011, Eddy from Waring wrote:501. At 4:24pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You are right to draw a distinction between criminal law and the State's Human Right's responsibilities in my opinion.However these responsibilities do mean the State and its agencies have a duty to act where a person's Human Rights would otherwise be in danger and it would be lax so not to do. Such action would typically be by passing appropriate criminal or civil laws and providing the means to enforce them, and in this way (among others, perhaps), the two connect.Yes, the state and its agencies do have a duty to make us safe and act and to enforce the law. This is why we have a police force, security services, a judicial system and prisons. This is not a blank cheque to provide each of us with armed guards to escort us everywhere, to lock up those we regard as undesireable "just in case" and to have round the clock surveillance of our property etc. Neither does it give the state and its agencies the right to infringe our liberties and those of others simply to eliminate risk that actually cannot be eliminated.I find it bizarre that many on here who believe in removing liberties from some they regard as a threat so they don't face risk are the same people who object to restrictions on their liberty to drive at whatever speed they like, to use mobile phones whilst driving, to smoke wherever they wish to etc. Whilst I am not saying you are such a person it would seem what many on here hold as "human rights" are rights for themselves to do whatever they want but that those they disapprove of should not have these same rights. That's clearly irrational. Thu 06 Jan 2011 08:36:49 GMT+1 chrislabiff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=91#comment533 I'd bet on an 'incident' within a month if they were scrapped.What a co-incidence. Again. Thu 06 Jan 2011 07:01:00 GMT+1 FatMao http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=91#comment532 This post has been Removed Thu 06 Jan 2011 06:40:33 GMT+1 FatMao http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=91#comment531 This post has been Removed Thu 06 Jan 2011 06:33:59 GMT+1 corum-populo-2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=91#comment530 "Should 'Control Orders' be scrapped"? is the HYS question.This whole issue is over-rated. Keep this legislation as it stands. Control Orders were introduced for a specific purpose and potential threat. We all know that the Human Rights Act lawyer will kick in etc., etc.However, what is more disturbing is that: Local Authorities have more powers with their 'bin police' fining the elderly - yet unable to grit or provide grit bins so the neighbours can actually help grit the elder's or the infirm's access to their blasted bins!!! So much for local human rights? Thu 06 Jan 2011 03:52:11 GMT+1 OfficinaSans http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=90#comment529 Basically, not if new counter-terrorism legislation and control orders alternatives involves BarCapp, never. Thu 06 Jan 2011 03:17:39 GMT+1 mac http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=90#comment528 This post has been Removed Thu 06 Jan 2011 02:35:43 GMT+1 panchopablo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=90#comment527 @Phosgene.This 2011,not 1948.That old relic you so dearly cling onto is of a bygone era in which the threat was based on preventing another Nazi Germany,not terrorism.The world did change after 9/11,the HR act has not and that is why we are fighting terrorism with are hands tied behind backs.@Minsa.Is Zionism the same as Nazism?........No.However some actions committed by Zionists are of the far right nature.Lets us not forget that the Arabs ethnically cleansed an estimated 800,000 Jews from there homes the same time Zionists where in British Mandate Palestine.A fact always overlooked by many. Thu 06 Jan 2011 01:28:22 GMT+1 Stringfellow http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=90#comment526 What we have to grasp is that policing terrorism is different than policing day to day crime.If a bank robber for example carries out a successful heist, only money gets stolen and human deaths or injuries are either low or non-existant. However if a suicide bomber is successful dozens, hundreds, even thousands of people can be killed or injured, that is why it is imperative we interdict terrorists before their plans come to fruition. Given all the finger pointing that occurred after the 9/11 attacks, it is clear people wll blame government, control orders or no control orders, if another terrorist attack is successful. Thu 06 Jan 2011 00:17:49 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=90#comment525 512. At 6:39pm on 05 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:"The rules changed on 9/11,we now face a enemy with no remorse and no care for the death toll,in fact the more the better as far as they are concerned and so measures such as control orders are a nessacery evil to up hold the most important human right.......the right to life.So yes i understand human rights and understand that joe public rights come before the right of terrorists."----------YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A HUMAN RIGHT IS.You probably never will: the clue is in "The rules changed on 9/11" -- which is a nonsense IF you understand that a right is inalienable and innate.Therefore NOTHING changed on 9/11 regarding rights."so measures such as control orders are a nessacery evil to up hold the most important human right" -- more nonsense: you confuse the law and the security services with a moral right to not murder people. This is not the human right of the right to life. A small nuance, but a K2-sized point of understanding.So I suppose the choice is this: do you want to understand or do you want to fight a corner using Blairspeak and reasoning from Richard Littlejohn? Wed 05 Jan 2011 22:46:19 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=90#comment524 509. At 6:11pm on 05 Jan 2011, FatMao wrote:"Sorry to keep banging on about this Phosgene, but you claim to know the 'truth', how exactly?"----------Like I said, judgments are available on court websites. Try reading them.Like I said, *some* newspapers report facts and not stupid and emotive claims like "The justice system and our judges are a laughing stock!" -- which is great journalism for absorbent paper, and fit only for your outhouse. Try reading fact-based news instead.That is how I know these stupid claims about our judges are stupid claims about our judges. Time and time again, some outfits claiming to be newspapers print *their version of the news*.Personally, I prefer facts. It's pretty easy to spot attempts to mislead the British public if you're looking at a case judgment and journalism that twists what the judge said. Wed 05 Jan 2011 22:35:49 GMT+1 Sickofpoliticians http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=89#comment523 432. At 10:56pm on 04 Jan 2011, matt-stone wrote:SICKOFPOLITICIANS @ 426......you're a joke, mate... not only have you gone off topic, you are also full of cliches and whatnots. Try and contribute something original and thought-provoking, like I've done above, about the Control Order and why Ministers are thinking of ditching it. The subject has nothing to do with immigration, but everything to do with terrorism whether EU citizens, IRA, rebellious political groups in the UK - anybody....have got the message. Swallow your prejudices, clear your mind and start again. OK Matt, I've read your thought provoking garbage, so now we have to wait for the hooded terrorist to be in possession of a round object with "bomb" written on it before arresting them. My answer to that once again is, "Too late mate."Other than that answer to your stupid thought provoking statement everything else I put is bang to rights so don't be waving the prejudice card in my direction, they get their chance to live in the west and mess it up, deport the lot of them and if its some misguided European or even a British national we cant exclude from our shores, then hang or shoot them for treason. We've been overun to bursting point and playing mister nice guy will get us nowhere but further into the mire, it'll be jokers like yourself who'll be hiding under the bed when it all comes to the crunch, the men of this country will be fighting for whats rightfully ours. Wed 05 Jan 2011 22:03:50 GMT+1 BillJames http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=89#comment522 Much of the terrorist threat in the UK has been generated by an inadequate application of border control. J Chuter Ede, a Labour Home Secretary once opined "When the interests of the (foreign national) and those of the United Kingdom are in conflict, those of the United Kingdom will take precedence."Had Governments followed this precept since the 1970's, our country would be a less insecure and nervous place. There is no will or ability now by the authorities to robustly pursue the removal of foreign nationals who present a threat to UK security. More importantly, there are so many self imposed administrative barriers to refusal of entry and prompt removal. Inadmissible persons are released on "temporary admission" due to lack of detention space and subsequently abscond;rarely to be recovered. The longer a foreign national has been in the UK unlawfully, the more difficult it is to remove them to the third country from which they arrived. Most inadmissible and undocumented arrivals come from EU countries; with administrative and legal delays it becomes impossible to remove them to their EU departure point. Legal aid will enable them to resist return to their own country.Look at the major criminal trial resolution today. I will be most surprised if the foreign nationals involved were not in the UK due to some claim for refugee status. Unlikely this aspect will ever be brought to the public notice, just bear it in mind. Wed 05 Jan 2011 22:01:15 GMT+1 minsa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=89#comment521 520. At 9:35pm on 05 Jan 2011, FatMao wrote:Judging from the news and history books, then Yes! Zionism is very different from Nazism. Now, back to the question "Is radical Islam any different from Nazism?"Go on minsa, answer the question!>>> Judging from the news and history books, then Yes! Islam is very different from Nazism. Now, back to the question "Is radical Zionism any different from Nazism?"Go on FatMao, answer the question!The essence of Nazism was removing ethnically different people from the country in order to create an Aryan state. Just changing the word Aryan to Jewish changes nothing of the underlying priciple. Israel is the Jewish state just as the Nazis wanted Germany to be the Aryan state.If, say, someone wanted to remove blacks from their country that would be akin to Nazism. If they wanted to remove Arabs instead it is ludicrous to claim that this is in any way different. Wed 05 Jan 2011 21:54:35 GMT+1 minsa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=89#comment520 462. At 1:21pm on 05 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:...Israel is built on what was TransJordan not Palestine.>>> Israel Ministry of Foreign affairs website (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/UN+General+Assembly+Resolution+181.htm)UN General Assembly Resolution 181The General Assembly,...Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below; ...-end of quote-Palestine, not Transjordan, is explicitly and repeatedly named in UNGAR 181 as the land which is being partitioned.The map on this website clearly shows that the partitioned state of Palestine is different from adjacent countries Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan which are all shown as separate countries in the same colour distinct from the colours used to show the Arab and Jewish partitions in Palestine.This malignant Palestine denial by the Zionists is no different in principle from holocaust denial, the only difference is the historical fact which is being denied. Wed 05 Jan 2011 21:43:51 GMT+1 FatMao http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=89#comment519 This post has been Removed Wed 05 Jan 2011 21:35:04 GMT+1 Deb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=89#comment518 The best kind of control of these 45 people isa) put their photos and copy passports addresses and vehicle details on the internet in a prominent place for us all to watch them all the timeb) pay a private detective to watch their movements all the timec) intall CCTV across the road from where they lived) await an excuse to deport them wherever possibleNo contitutional problem but maximum surveillance Wed 05 Jan 2011 21:31:34 GMT+1 minsa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=88#comment517 462. At 1:21pm on 05 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:...Is radical Islam any different from Nazism?.>>> The Nazis killed and ethnically cleansed Jews from Germany to create an Aryan state.The Zionists killed and ethnically cleansed Arabs from Palestine to create a Jewish state.Is radical Zionism any different from Nazism? Wed 05 Jan 2011 21:26:28 GMT+1 yonex83 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=88#comment516 The world develops with each passing day, becoming an increasingly more integral system, all of whose parts are interconnected like cogwheels. No one has freedom to move one millimeter in any direction and in any sense, whether it is one’s desire, thought, or action, without influencing everyone else.That is why there cannot be peace and perfection in the world as long as there is even one unsatisfied person left, who disagrees with the current state being perfect. This is the law of the integral system. We are all connected as organs of one body where the illness of even one organ is felt in the entire organism.On the other hand, making progress toward peace is a gradual process both with regard to the whole world and any of its parts. The world today is like a sick person who is lying on the operating table waiting for open heart surgery. Of course, in this situation the doctor won’t pay attention if the patient complains about a small scratch on his leg. That is why the world’s correction will happen gradually. Wed 05 Jan 2011 21:15:02 GMT+1 FatMao http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=88#comment515 This post has been Removed Wed 05 Jan 2011 21:03:22 GMT+1 Rattler http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=88#comment514 FJ Glos seems to be worried about the likes of Hitler coming to power and yet he whines about the 'rights' of a group of people who are the closest thing to active Nazis that we have in the world today. The Taliban were a bunch of gangsters who terrorised the population, denied women the most basic human rights and set up terrorist training camps which were attended by British muslims. It is naive to think that the courts can deal with the terrorist threat. We are at war with these people and we can no more deal with them through the courts than we could have dealt with Hitler through the courts. Wed 05 Jan 2011 20:17:16 GMT+1 Magi Tatcher http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=88#comment513 511. At 6:26pm on 05 Jan 2011, concernedbill wrote:No, they definitely should not be scrapped unless they are to be replaced by a somewhat stronger alternative. This is just another example of the conservatives rolling over for the liberal democrats. Is Cameron so desperate to stay in power that he rolls over to every whim of Clegg who leads one of the smallest (hopefully soon to be non-existant) political parties in this country? Cameron should throw in the towel, go to the people and get a mandate to rule without the minority dictator (though methinks he has already gone to far).If Cameron threw in the towel and went to the people you will probably end up with a Labour government. I assume that this isn't what you really want. Wed 05 Jan 2011 19:17:32 GMT+1 FJ GLOS http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=87#comment512 Yes. People should never be treated like this without a trial or at least being charged with an offence which if guilty of could mean they are a danger (and should be brought to trial as quickly as possible). We should never have cases where people are placed under what is basically house arrest indefinitely because police think they *might* be terrorists (*might* meaning that they obviously don't have enough evidence to actually charge them with any crime, so by default the evidence for keeping them there must be flimsy at best). What happened to the principle of innocence until proven guilty? What if one, some or even many of people under control orders are actually completely innocent?What if the police decided one day to put YOU under a control order?What if the police/government abused these powers, and started calling anybody they don't like "potential terrorists", knowing they never need to give them a trial?How did Hitler come to power in 1933? He used mass hysteria to pass laws allowing people to be locked up without charge just by accusing them of being terrorists (or the 1930s equivalent). Search for "Reichstag fire" and look for any parallels here. Wed 05 Jan 2011 18:41:54 GMT+1 panchopablo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=87#comment511 498. At 4:14pm on 05 Jan 2011, Phosgene.You and alter ego are correct that a lot of the HR act is to prevent state brutality but there in lies the problem.The HR act was created after WW2 to prevent another Nazi Germany and never took into account terrorism,especially modern day terrorism.The rules changed on 9/11,we now face a enemy with no remorse and no care for the death toll,in fact the more the better as far as they are concerned and so measures such as control orders are a nessacery evil to up hold the most important human right.......the right to life.The moral highground and a old relic wont win this war,in fact its hastening are loss.So yes i understand human rights and understand that joe public rights come before the right of terrorists.501. At 4:24pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain.Why is it that now in this country that wanted posters cannot be issued for suspected criminals as it infringes on there human rights?.This just one of many examples of the criminal justice system being hampered by the HR act.As regard to Abu Hamza, "In past cases, the ECHR has stopped the UK deporting suspected foreign terrorists to places where they might be executed or tortured. In the Masri case this has been extended to refusing extradition to a country where he might be jailed for life and where the prison regime is judged to be too harsh. The ruling would apply to any extradition to the US unless American authorities can guarantee in advance that the suspect will not be incarcerated in a so-called supermax prison. The court said there should be further legal argument on whether life without parole would breach the suspects’ human rights."Hmm,isnt this a case of the HR act preventing the justice system,well the American justice system you agree is much like the UK.503. At 4:35pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain.Even hardened supporters of the EU admit the treaty is the same sa the constitution bar the name.The fact such an important change in the EU workings where passed without the consent of over 300 million+ European citizens shows the contempt and undemocratic system the EU is.oh,Didnt Ireland want there abortion laws not be infringed yet is now facing action from you guessed it,the European court of human rights.2011,hopefully the year the EU comes crumbling down. Wed 05 Jan 2011 18:39:39 GMT+1 bridgwaterbill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=87#comment510 No, they definitely should not be scrapped unless they are to be replaced by a somewhat stronger alternative. This is just another example of the conservatives rolling over for the liberal democrats. Is Cameron so desperate to stay in power that he rolls over to every whim of Clegg who leads one of the smallest (hopefully soon to be non-existant) political parties in this country? Cameron should throw in the towel, go to the people and get a mandate to rule without the minority dictator (though methinks he has already gone to far). Wed 05 Jan 2011 18:26:19 GMT+1 Brian Brown http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=87#comment509 If you have the absurdity of foreign terrorists who cannot be deported because it is not safe in their own country, or British born citizens who think that their backward mediaeval religion gives them the right to kill Britons, then what is the alternative? The next attack(and it will come) on Britons and overseas visitors will see a backlash from the majority, innocent as well as guilty. Wed 05 Jan 2011 18:15:22 GMT+1 FatMao http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=87#comment508 This post has been Removed Wed 05 Jan 2011 18:11:56 GMT+1 This is a colleague announcement http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=87#comment507 501. At 4:24pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You are right to draw a distinction between criminal law and the State's Human Right's responsibilities in my opinion.However these responsibilities do mean the State and its agencies have a duty to act where a person's Human Rights would otherwise be in danger and it would be lax so not to do. Such action would typically be by passing appropriate criminal or civil laws and providing the means to enforce them, and in this way (among others, perhaps), the two connect.I've also used this duty on the part of a council to get them to act to prevent trespass to their land (where they would not have otherwise) when it was only through this trespass that nuisance to my own property was happening. They would, if they'd not, through laxity, have been contributing to the interference with my Human Right to the peaceful enjoyment of my possessions.So it's not quite clear cut. Therefore, if the State has a duty to protect a person's right to life (and not merely to refrain from infringing it), then that does surely mean that where someone on his way to work is exposed to such danger as he may be killed, then the State needs to do what it reasonably can to remove that danger. I do agree with Phosgene though, that the New Labour terminology was as patronising as it was inaccurately populist in this instance. Wed 05 Jan 2011 17:47:15 GMT+1 bob http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=86#comment506 i think if a person goes out intentionally to kill a innocent person then they should hang him not put him in a luxury isolation unit where his every needs are met because at present its the criminal element that are running this country with all there deceptions and lies and its the innocent that have to pay for it. Wed 05 Jan 2011 17:46:15 GMT+1 Giselle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=86#comment505 Clegg said today (05/01/2011) "Of course our absolute top priority must always remain the safety of the British people but we mustn't do that by sacrificing traditional British liberties which have always made this country very great."Can you ever hope to get anything right, Clegg? My traditional British liberty means being free to go where I want in my own country without constantly thinking there is someone out there wanting to harm me. I agree with Control Orders, but they need to be strengthened - keep these people out of the way of the general public. Wed 05 Jan 2011 17:36:41 GMT+1 Reclaim_the_country http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=86#comment504 They should be used to control the government. Wed 05 Jan 2011 17:18:37 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=86#comment503 How strange! You make this all about facts instead of perceptions and some people have nothing to add. Wed 05 Jan 2011 17:13:28 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=86#comment502 493. At 3:35pm on 05 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:Oh,why after the the first treaty was rejected by France and Holland was its name changed and no votes allowed bar Ireland who intially rejected it and then was humilated and forced vote again?.How can this organisation preach democracy to others when it cannot promise such itself?.The "EU Constitution" was rejected by the electorates of France and the Netherlands. The Lisbon Treaty removed much, if not all, of the constitutional aspects, but two documents whose main purpose is to consolidate the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Nice and other EU treaties into a single document will look pretty similar in 90-95% of the content. Rejecting it would still mean those treaties applied. Furthermore, Lisbon actually made the EU more accountable to national parliaments and the EU parliament and made it harder for one or two big countries (read: France and Germany) to get their way. How could you call that "undemocratic"?As for Ireland: firstly why would you consider one nation of .5% of the EU's population blocking a treaty ratified by 26 nations and 99.5% of the EU's population democratic? Secondly, Ireland negotiated some changes to Lisbon. Putting that revised treaty to a second vote is entirely reasonable? What would you alternative be: start another 10 year process? Wed 05 Jan 2011 16:35:42 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=86#comment501 501. At 4:24pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote:"You clearly do not understand the purpose of Human Rights legislation and the role of the criminal law. Until you do we are all arguing at cross purposes."----------Perhaps the unwillingness is intentional at this point?In the same vein, I know naff all about chemistry, so I'll take it upon myself to have a VERY FIXED OPINION on how carbon bonds to other elements. Then I can have emotive slanging matches with real chemists telling them that they are wrong and fifth columnists too.Hobby blogging is necessarily about debate. Wed 05 Jan 2011 16:34:13 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=85#comment500 494. At 3:45pm on 05 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:479. At 2:20pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote:"They are not there to constrain criminals such as murderers, terrorists, rapists, muggers etc: the criminal law is there to do that."Then why is criminal law hampered by the human right act?.Why is Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada using the human rights law to prevent them facing other countries criminal laws?.It doesn't. What it won't permit is torture, detention without due judicial process and many other things that are there to protect you just as much as criminals. If a government tried to enact a law to expel or restrict the freedoms of descendants of Hispanic immigrants perhaps you would be grateful for the constraints of the HRA which would make such laws illegal.As I understand it Abu Hamza is imprisoned awaiting extradition proceedings to the USA. How is that "using the human rights law to prevent them facing other countries criminal laws"?How come the other 46 signatories to the ECHR (and nations like the USA which has very similar constitutional rights) don't have the problems you think the UK has in its application of the HRA?You clearly do not understand the purpose of Human Rights legislation and the role of the criminal law. Until you do we are all arguing at cross purposes. Wed 05 Jan 2011 16:24:52 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=85#comment499 477. At 2:09pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain.Isnt 90% of laws now direct from Brussels?.It seems anyone who dictates the laws of country must be in control of that country.Err, no it's about 10%: see http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/rp2010/RP10-062.pdfThough the mods may not permit that link (not sure why).You've been taken in.Though it does depends on what you mean by a "law". Implementing a common set of standards for trade (which is what most EU legislation concerns) is not quite the same as passing a law to detain terrorist suspects for 28 days. Legislating on regulations for tobacco and olive production (which the UK still has to enact even though these are not produced commercially in the UK) is not quite on a par in terms of its impact as laws passed on waiting times at NHS hospitals.On the other hand common EU arrest warrants to allow terrorist suspects to be transferred from (say) Italy to the UK are more useful than a law passed in the UK parliament to ban the possession of nuclear weapons. Wed 05 Jan 2011 16:17:41 GMT+1 Sjeh76 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=85#comment498 482. At 2:29pm on 05 Jan 2011, locust wrote:my father did not fight for this country and suffer as a POW for the likes of some posters to support islamic terrorists 'rights'to repeat - after 9/11 the rule book went out of the window - and rightly so!_____________________________________________________________Neither did my grandfather fight and suffer as a POW for the 'rule book to be thrown out the window' or to live in a state where someone can be imprisoned 'just in case' because they were 'of interest'. He'd be turning in his grave right now - he could be a fierce old guy, with some funny ways of thinking, but he was very clear on what he, and your father, were fighting for. Your father fought and suffered for our freedoms and our liberty, against a state that epitomised this exact sort of behaviour all the way to it's ultimate conclusion. (I am assuming you refer to either WW1 or WW2, here, I admit.) You need to respect that. It's just that fear makes a nation compliant. After all, it's easier to control a populace by making them afraid than it is by encouraging them to think for themselves. That is exactly the lesson your Father and my Grandfather learnt from the people they faced in battle.Anyway, I think you'll find many are not discussing the 'rights of Islamic terrorists' People are discussing the rights of people who have not been proved to be Islamic terrorists - simply because of their associates, place of worship, family members and friends. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. The things our forebears fought for, in fact. They didn't fight for the right for the state to arrest and imprison people without proof. It's psychosomatic - indellibly wired into the human brain: destroy the outsider, punish the different.That still doesn't make it right. And it never, ever, will. Wed 05 Jan 2011 16:16:44 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=85#comment497 493. At 3:35pm on 05 Jan 2011, panchopablo wrote:' "Pretty obvious, really, but if you will persist in the fake human rights debate, I'll have to point out the extremely obvious and elementary to you."Please do,you never answer comments directed at you,so it will be a first.'----------Instead of getting personal, look who is avoiding facts again -- it's YOU who is avoiding facts again, pancho. You always do when they are inconvenient to your point.Perhaps you will choose to learn what a human right really is so you can talk about them without your Blairspeak on the subject. See @479 for the facts you claim you want, yet always ignore.I've explained this to you before. Still none the wiser, eh? btw, I am *not* Total Mass Retain. I can see that two people who know more facts than you might look like the same person: it's just another wrong conclusion of yours. Wed 05 Jan 2011 16:14:05 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=85#comment496 492. At 3:14pm on 05 Jan 2011, thomas wrote:"We hear so much about the human rights of potential terrorists. What about my human rights not to be injured on killed by those same people?"----------Thomas, do read the 20 or so posts above yours for why this is a misconstrued question... Wed 05 Jan 2011 15:59:22 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=85#comment495 489. At 3:05pm on 05 Jan 2011, Haltone wrote:At 2:20pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote:"The 7/7 bombers were terrorist criminals who broke the law. Had they survived and been brought to justice (as happened with the 21/7 bombers) they would have faced the penalties determined by the law. In doing so, though, the Human Rights protocols ensure that the state and legal system bringing them to justice does not stoop to their level of criminality."_________________________________________________________-The core issue here is whether the legal code should differenciate between handbag snatchers and suicide bombers.Suicide bombers do not operate on their own, they have a terrorist infrastructure in the background.If you simply arrest failed bombers and apply the rigors of the law to them, the hidden infrastructure that supports them will still remain.One solution would be to make identity fraud punishable by a mandatory 20 years in prison for everyone, terrorists and ordinary criminals alike, then all you need to do is prove they used false identities in any of their terrorist activities, and not have to prove a complicated terrorism case.Or again, make the downloading or possession of terrorist related material equivalent in law to that of being in possession of child pornography.A famous example is the gangster Al Capone, the law could never get him for gangster-related offences, so they got him for tax evasion.That's an interesting point but not quite the issue I was trying to get across. Those who appear to disagree with Human Rights protocols appear to have two gripes:1) Terrorists (and other criminals) have protections that the rest of us do not have. That is not the case. We are all protected by the human rights legislation it just so happens that most of us do not encounter arbitrary action by state so have little need to invoke it in practise.2) Human Rights legislation holds democratic states to a higher standard than terrorists or non-democratic states. Damned right they do! Wed 05 Jan 2011 15:51:04 GMT+1 locust http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=84#comment494 487 - Total Mass Reclaimthe concept of a global islamic caliphate lies at the root of ALL muslims - some seek it by peaceful conversion - others by violenceand i say this speaking to muslims of both sides of the argumentspeople oft quote - non radical muslims/extremists - this only means that these are the people who do not advocate violence in publicBUT - in their hearts they are muslim first and foremost not british/english) and yes, they want an 'islamic' country/caliphateits also very clear that the majority of posters with Lefts type views do not understand the security services work in any way/shape/formcertain things/info have to be kept secret to protect sources etc - thats why thus type of evidence is not available to the judiciary who are a load of 'academic' fools intent on making their mark of the uk judicial system lots of things happen out of the public eye for very good reason = security and to avoid panica little secret, as an architect who was working for a local authority in the late 1970's when there were fears of a rabies epidemic in the uki was tasked to design containment 'cages' for rabid/suspected rabid animals using off the peg materials - in this case using rented scaffolding etcmy god, you never heard of it and julian assange never reported it!!such is the nature of the real world Wed 05 Jan 2011 15:47:33 GMT+1 panchopablo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=84#comment493 479. At 2:20pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote: "They are not there to constrain criminals such as murderers, terrorists, rapists, muggers etc: the criminal law is there to do that."Then why is criminal law hampered by the human right act?.Why is Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada using the human rights law to prevent them facing other countries criminal laws?.485. At 2:57pm on 05 Jan 2011, Phosgene wrote:"Strewth. Total Mass Retain, you explained that better than a whole month's worth of tabloid newspapers. It begs an interesting question as to why human rights are deliberately misrepresented, and why people like pancho are kept in the dark."Phosgene and Total mass Retain are but the same person. Wed 05 Jan 2011 15:45:46 GMT+1 panchopablo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=84#comment492 474. At 1:59pm on 05 Jan 2011, Phosgene wrote:"And, pancho, before your next thought-lite comment, you *do* realise that the law is there for this very purpose?."Yet those that wish to commit terrorist acts against us do not reconise mans law.Well,unless they want a large payout or are facing extradition to a less forgiving country than the UK."Pretty obvious, really, but if you will persist in the fake human rights debate, I'll have to point out the extremely obvious and elementary to you."Please do,you never answer comments directed at you,so it will be a first.477. At 2:09pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain.Isnt 90% of laws now direct from Brussels?.It seems anyone who dictates the laws of country must be in control of that country.Oh,why after the the first treaty was rejected by France and Holland was its name changed and no votes allowed bar Ireland who intially rejected it and then was humilated and forced vote again?.How can this organisation preach democracy to others when it cannot promise such itself?. Wed 05 Jan 2011 15:35:58 GMT+1 thomas http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=84#comment491 We hear so much about the human rights of potential terrorists. What about my human rights not to be injured on killed by those same people? Let's monitor those whose behaviour is causing concern - rather that than more innocent folk are blown up. If the terrorists objects to control orders I suggest they stop their offending behaviour or move out of the country altogether. Wed 05 Jan 2011 15:14:55 GMT+1 NameAgain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=84#comment490 483. At 2:32pm on 05 Jan 2011, locust wrote:Phosgene - just another obnoxious gasyou still keep spouting the same old driveltell you what - i'll pay for your one way ticket to your taleb friends - homestly!-----------moderator moderator, please dont sleep and pay attention that they are talking sexy things.there are kids here. Wed 05 Jan 2011 15:12:08 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=84#comment489 483. At 2:32pm on 05 Jan 2011, locust wrote:"Phosgene - just another obnoxious gasyou still keep spouting the same old driveltell you what - i'll pay for your one way ticket to your taleb friends - homestly!"----------How about showing I am wrong -- using facts and reason -- instead of dumbed-down playground catcalls?On the scale of things, not an impressive post. It's just puerile. Wed 05 Jan 2011 15:11:19 GMT+1 Haltone http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=83#comment488 At 2:20pm on 05 Jan 2011, Total Mass Retain wrote:"The 7/7 bombers were terrorist criminals who broke the law. Had they survived and been brought to justice (as happened with the 21/7 bombers) they would have faced the penalties determined by the law. In doing so, though, the Human Rights protocols ensure that the state and legal system bringing them to justice does not stoop to their level of criminality."_________________________________________________________-The core issue here is whether the legal code should differenciate between handbag snatchers and suicide bombers.Suicide bombers do not operate on their own, they have a terrorist infrastructure in the background.If you simply arrest failed bombers and apply the rigors of the law to them, the hidden infrastructure that supports them will still remain.One solution would be to make identity fraud punishable by a mandatory 20 years in prison for everyone, terrorists and ordinary criminals alike, then all you need to do is prove they used false identities in any of their terrorist activities, and not have to prove a complicated terrorism case.Or again, make the downloading or possession of terrorist related material equivalent in law to that of being in possession of child pornography.A famous example is the gangster Al Capone, the law could never get him for gangster-related offences, so they got him for tax evasion. Wed 05 Jan 2011 15:05:37 GMT+1 Masons Arms http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=83#comment487 //408. At 6:34pm on 04 Jan 2011, chattroh boy wrote:It seems that you don't need terrorists to take your freedoms, the government will do that for you. The message that these control orders send out is that we believe in freedom and fair trials, but in certain cases we will not apply that to certain people. That is the begining of the end of a democratic society ruled by fairness. //I'm inclined to believe that people should either get a trial or be considered innocent. On the other hand, I know there are going to be cases where it's very difficult to bring proof, even if there are legitimate grounds for concern about the people involved.The real solution is to just expel them from the country. As I understand it, they're not from here, and I don't believe that any foreigner should have an automatic right to be and stay here.We often refuse people entry in the first place. No one has suggested that the people who have been refused, be they muslim or other extremists, were going to commit terrorism here. But their presence was deemed to be a risk. Wed 05 Jan 2011 15:03:44 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=83#comment486 482. At 2:29pm on 05 Jan 2011, locust wrote:my God, i fear for the future of this countrymy father did not fight for this country and suffer as a POW for the likes of some posters to support islamic terrorists 'rights'to repeat - after 9/11 the rule book went out of the window - and rightly so!we are fighting for our very way of life against extremist islam - i know who the enemy is - and i fully support enhanced interrogation inc waterboarding etc (its not that tough our and us special forces undergo waterboarding as part of their 'survival' training)what shocks me is the 'romantic' view of terrorists as freedom fighters etc i still remember one islamist who said on the BBC that he would not rest until the black flag of islam flew over downing street!And that guy was an idiot and did more to make his cause a laughing stock than suppressing him saying it.Between 1917 and 1990 there were many who wanted a red flag over Downing Street (some still do, doubtless). We didn't throw the "rule book" out to deal with them.I have not seen anyone on here arguing that these terrorists are "freedom fighters" - quite the reverse: they are criminals. Certainly a country whose inhabitants funded and supported "freedom fighters" in Ireland and elsewhere before 9/11 no longer does see them that way, but that is still not a reason to "throw the rulebook" out in how the authorities deal with these criminals. Wed 05 Jan 2011 15:03:25 GMT+1 Total Mass Retain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=83#comment485 481. At 2:29pm on 05 Jan 2011, Gordon wrote:UK Law, which one would that be? As far as i knew no such thing exists. You may need to get these basic facts correct before preaching to others.This is rather pedantic since UK law essentially consists of three systems: the English and Welsh Law; Northern Ireland Law and Scottish Law. Much, certainly of statute law (see: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/ ) is common. UK law should be considered as the combined law of these three but applicable in the appropriate geographical jurisdiction. You will be unlikely to find much, if anything, that one jurisdiction regards as criminal that another doesn't. Wed 05 Jan 2011 14:58:12 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=83#comment484 Strewth. Total Mass Retain, you explained that better than a whole month's worth of tabloid newspapers. It begs an interesting question as to why human rights are deliberately misrepresented, and why people like pancho are kept in the dark. Wed 05 Jan 2011 14:57:03 GMT+1 LabourBrokeBritain http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=82#comment483 Its all very well saying control orders are necessary for the protection of the majority, but you would soon change your mind if YOU were the terror "suspect". What criteria do they use when deciding you are a "suspected" terrorist? How do you defend yourself against unknown evidence due to it being kept secret? Isn't this kind of power very easy to abuse? I find this kind of power very disturbing.Some people are very quick to give up their rights under the mantra "If you've got nothing to hide blah blah blah...". These people are as much a threat to our way of life. Slap a control order on them. Wed 05 Jan 2011 14:55:04 GMT+1 locust http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/01/should_control_orders_be_scrap.html?page=82#comment482 Phosgene - just another obnoxious gasyou still keep spouting the same old driveltell you what - i'll pay for your one way ticket to your taleb friends - homestly! Wed 05 Jan 2011 14:32:29 GMT+1