I would get rid of the need for conviction for deportation. I would devise the criteria for deportation under consultation but with no mistake that the state took back the right of residence within this country from the fcuking lawyers to our elected representatives.

The balance between the human rights of extremists and the rights of innocent children not to be torn apart by nails isn't a problem for me.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Looks like you (and a few others on here) will be disappointed:

"Counter-terrorism police have been informed but are not treating it as a terrorist incident."

[Link]

Looks like just normal life in the UK.

'we won't let them change our way of life (but we are going to have a go at decimating the human rights act)' seems to be May's line at the moment.

What the human 'rights' that stopped us deporting the fascist Abu Qatada for about eight years and cost us millions - that 'human rights'?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

I don't think you or a British Government could. It'd be turned over in the Law Courts. You cannot exact Punishment without law, is a basic tenant of UK law.

Its ratified by the Human Rights Act, but it effectively dates back to Magna Carta. Its not even really about rights, but the basis of British Law.

You'd definitely need a trial or conviction as the basis to establish deportation.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

There's no perfect place to draw the line. It's like the Potter Stewart definition of p*rnography -- "I know it when I see it."

I don't think it's possible to create any hard and fast definitions that would simultaneously secure us against all (or almost all) future attacks and not result in scores of truly innocent people being rounded up/interned/deported/etc.