Fake news; [url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/keir-starmer-uk-human-rights-law-does-not-prevent-capture-of-terroriststake it from a man who knows.[/url

[url=https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/Correct.[/url

I think Backwardsman is talking about deporting people for thoughts.

I think it's a little more than thoughts. But never mind let's carry on as we are. We will light more candles, have more one minutes silence and lots of they will never beat us bleatings.

Or maybe we could rebuild the decimated police force, stop bombing people into oblivion, cease our support for the terrorist sponsoring Saudi regime, and avoid the knee jerk reaction of removing our civil liberties and going all North Korea on the internet?

To coin a phrase, there is often a third way.

Of course it did. As the chickens of thatchers right to buy scheme came home to roost. Private landlords started increasing rents as social housing became increasingly scarce. More should have been done to cap that admittedly. But that money didnt benefit claimants, merely the landlords.

Is it not Qatar this week?? Or did I hear Trump wrongly??

They're both at it but the Saudis buy a lot more US arms.

What is it then if it is more than thoughts?
Do you think terrorists wake up & think "I know, I'll kill a few people for no particular reason"?

Civil liberties works both ways , it would be rather helpful if certain people refrained from stabbing and blowing us up.
The human rights act has been abused by people to prevent deportation , usually claiming the country of origin uses torture.
This therectically prevents deportation, as does anybody claiming to be gay, as most Muslim countries aren't quite onboard with gay rights. Incidentally the left wing freedom rights legal lawyers have made a fortune from legal aid. Abu quatadas case took approximately 9 years. I note the left wing brigades latest trend is picking fault with Saudi. If us stopping arms sales to Saudi would make a difference, excellent.
Unfortunately France and Germany would quite happily step in and sell them French and German arms. Incidentally if we are proposing to adopt the moral high ground, should we be exporting to china and Russia. Both countries not noted for high standards of human rights. Coincidently gay right does not seem to be in vogue in both of these countries .
You mention a third way ,hopefully that means waving good bye to anybody who does not care for our laws and systems of government.

When the Greens take power after today & you do not care for their laws & systems of government will be able to wave goodbye to you? Or does it just apply to darkies?

Good grief you are really off the pace on this one. In the highly unlikely event of the greens winning power, they will be subject to reelection after a term in office.If they don't perform in government then they will be voted out.
Our system of government whilst not perfect has served this country well for a great length of time. Also our system of law based on Magna Carta which has been copied throughout the world.
Regretfully you have made yourself look extremely foolish with your darkies comment.

You have not answered the question. There are laws I do not care for in this country. I do not support first past the post either. Therefore I fit your description. Explain who your policy, presumably designed to keep us safe, applies to.

The law on deportation is now far stricter than in the era before the advent of the Human Rights Act.

Before 2006 the immigration rules conferred a general discretion to deport or not as long as certain relevant considerations were taken into account. The relevant paragraph of the rules, paragraph 364, read as follows:

… in considering whether deportation is the right course on the merits, the public interest will be balanced against any compassionate circumstances of the case. While each case will be considered in the light of the particular circumstances, the aim is an exercise of the power of deportation which is consistent and fair as between one person and another, although one case will rarely be identical with another in all material respects. … Before a decision to deport is reached the Secretary of State will take into account all relevant factors known to him including:
(i) age;
(ii) length of residence in the United Kingdom;
(iii) strength of connections with the United Kingdom;
(iv) personal history, including character, conduct and employment record;
(v) domestic circumstances;
(vi) previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted;
(vii) compassionate circumstances;
(viii) any representations received on the person’s behalf.

This was the system that had been in place since the 1970s and it continued uninterrupted when the Human Rights Act came into force in 2000. No foreign criminal resisting deportation really needed to rely on the Human Rights Act because the immigration rules offered better protection.

In 2006 this old fashioned and pragmatic British approach was replaced with a presumption in favour of deportation, followed in 2007 by supposedly “automatic” deportations under the UK Borders Act 2007.

I didn't read that in my Daily Mail.

It depends on what you want from your foreign policy - are we happy with a host of despots running volatile countries. Perhaps it is better that tyrants like Assad, Gaddafi, Hussein etc. are allowed to butcher their own people in what is a historic tribal disputes and we stand aside and look on?

The Saudi's however disagreeable their standards do appear to have a big influence in the middle east. Possibly better the devil you know - bit like Putin?

As usual you are being melodramatic. A vote was taken about reforming the electoral system. People who bothered to turn up voted against it. I will attempt to answer your question once again, I can't help it if you don't like the answer.
Anyone arriving in this country illegally should be deported asap. Failing that they should be allowed one court hearing, judgement final no right of appeal.
If as you say you don't care for certain laws go see your MP With a veiw to changing the law. I believe it's called democracy, if you feel that doesn't work then you have the freedom to go to another country.

Yes, those pesky, disagreeable Saudis...

I would suggest that, as ever, despite your attempts to create a false "is that what you want, cos that's what'll happen" dichotomy, there is a middle way between ignoring despotic tyrants, and selling arms to a regime that supplies international terrorism; you know that really - you're just being daft because you've been up all night watching Mrs May's grand plan fall apart.

No I was watching a terrible Tory campaign and leader without an ounce of personality beat a Labour party by 60 seats and c1m votes. Perhaps your "let's spread it all around" politics doesn't really appeal to those who generate the wealth to support all those grand idealistic visions?

Sometimes you have to do deals with the devil. Its call the real world - but of course you know that

The election was called at the perfect time to suit the Tories, by the Tories.

They were expecting to Crush Labour into irrelevance and give themselves an increased majority to get some more of their foul policies through.

What has happened is that they are now weakened and have no mandate to do anything too right wing, which makes their alliance with the DUP doomed to failure. There has got to be another election, we can't carry on with this hamstrung government & Corbyn has got traction.

Bit of a pyrrhic victory for the Tories imo

A properly run Tory campaign would have crushed Corbyn. He has no traction - he is where Labour were is 2010. Anyone with half their wits about them could have exposed Labour's tax raising proposals for what they were - delusional.

Labour even had the gift of the London and Manchester bombings and still they couldn't get across the line.

People like you are complaining about the DUP but it would be OK for the SNP to hold the balance of power a party that polled <1m votes? I know Nicola thinks she is really the Queen.

Finally they had the greatest gift of all May - a front person who actually dislikes being in front of people

Still they couldn't bring it home - they weren't even close.

Tory campaign with right presentation would destroy the vacuous Jeremy and his acolytes.

As Mrs May has just demonstrated...

Interesting some of the reactions/views coming from the Grendfell Tower fire with some saying it's a revenge act against Muslims for the recent terrorist attacks.

It's Grenfell.

Who is saying that? I'm usually across the news, and I haven't heard that said anywhere, by anyone. I did see the Daily Mail print a picture of an Ethopian guy who's faiulty fridge apparently started the fire, but notably, they didn't print any pictures of any of the people who decided to allow the building to be clad in flammable material; or the 72 Tory landlords who voted down Corbyn's bill to make it mandatory that all rented property should be safe and habitable...

You haven't seen it anywhere??? Must be very selective with what you watch and read.