Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reports that she may find out today if she can return to the UK. She is now 23 and she has Begum for 8 years. Is the UK using her for political gain ?" They are and have been since the story first broke. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you watched her documentary on BBC. I've swung so back and forth on her but really don't believe she's a threat. She definitely got caught up in it but she was absolutely not as intelligent as it sounds like the others who went with her were. She's more of a danger to herself coming back I think. But if that's what she wants, I think we let her. She has suffered a hell of a lot already." Agree 100 % x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. " Pretty much this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. " She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. Pretty much this "I respect this opinion too though. It's a really complicated one because yes, there is no way she didn't know what ISIS was before travelling there (as she pretty much states) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regardless of whether she is a threat or not she is British, if she has done something wrong she should be tried in a British court. Stripping someone of their nationality sets a very frightening precedent." 100% | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. " Yes agreed! From personal experiance found this to b true from a young family member who was groomed not in same circumstances completely different! Who is now having counciling I spoke with them last week and they truly believed what they were told from age 9 totally feked up their mind! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. " I'm with you on this
I would also suggest if things had gone in her favour, she wouldn't be begging to come back now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. " Sorry, a child is someone under the age of 12. Shamina was 15 when she flew off to join her ISIS husband and become a female terrorist herself. The way terms are used matters. Society has already in my opinion wrongly equated the legal status of a minor (anybody under the age of 16) with being a child. It has no basis in psychology. Grooming can happen to anybody at any age. It's not just something that happens to individuals who are supposedly vulnerable due to their young age. If the idea is really for Shamina to make change and redeem herself, to show she's fully deradicalised and fit to be a British subject again, sure. Make her work for it. Start her off again on a periodic visa, then indefinite leave to remain, then PR, then back to British citizenship. Every step dependent on her proving that she's no longer who she was at 15 when she left to join ISIS. Quantifiable and qualifiable evidence to show rehabilitation and successful reintegration into British society. That in my opinion is the only way to do it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. " I think both the above posts set out exactly where the divide in opinion is. Was she a victim, or was she complicit. I don’t think there will be a coming together of these opposing opinions. Whatever decision is arrived at a large number will see it to be wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. Yes agreed! From personal experiance found this to b true from a young family member who was groomed not in same circumstances completely different! Who is now having counciling I spoke with them last week and they truly believed what they were told from age 9 totally feked up their mind! " I speak from experience, not a religious sect, and I can assure you all that manipulation is a very powerful form of cohersion and if the person is subjected to the right stimulation anything is possible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. Sorry, a child is someone under the age of 12. Shamina was 15 when she flew off to join her ISIS husband and become a female terrorist herself. The way terms are used matters. Society has already in my opinion wrongly equated the legal status of a minor (anybody under the age of 16) with being a child. It has no basis in psychology. Grooming can happen to anybody at any age. It's not just something that happens to individuals who are supposedly vulnerable due to their young age. If the idea is really for Shamina to make change and redeem herself, to show she's fully deradicalised and fit to be a British subject again, sure. Make her work for it. Start her off again on a periodic visa, then indefinite leave to remain, then PR, then back to British citizenship. Every step dependent on her proving that she's no longer who she was at 15 when she left to join ISIS. Quantifiable and qualifiable evidence to show rehabilitation and successful reintegration into British society. That in my opinion is the only way to do it. " You can't be serious | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This one is such a head fuck, I am choosing to sit on the fence with it, feel for anyone who is groomed by these animals, but I can’t get past some of the interviews she gave a few years ago where there appeared to be zero remorse for the families destroyed by ISIS regime. " Maybe it's worth remembering that when she gave these interviews she would have still been under the influence of isis, she needs help not harm. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. Yes agreed! From personal experiance found this to b true from a young family member who was groomed not in same circumstances completely different! Who is now having counciling I spoke with them last week and they truly believed what they were told from age 9 totally feked up their mind! I speak from experience, not a religious sect, and I can assure you all that manipulation is a very powerful form of cohersion and if the person is subjected to the right stimulation anything is possible. " Yes this was not a religious sect but as u say very impressionable at young age! In fact u might laugh but I got married at 16 and was told by my first hubby from maybe 2 years in that I was fat ugly and stupid for so many years I believed him 100% and I was an adult by then! X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. Yes agreed! From personal experiance found this to b true from a young family member who was groomed not in same circumstances completely different! Who is now having counciling I spoke with them last week and they truly believed what they were told from age 9 totally feked up their mind! I speak from experience, not a religious sect, and I can assure you all that manipulation is a very powerful form of cohersion and if the person is subjected to the right stimulation anything is possible. Yes this was not a religious sect but as u say very impressionable at young age! In fact u might laugh but I got married at 16 and was told by my first hubby from maybe 2 years in that I was fat ugly and stupid for so many years I believed him 100% and I was an adult by then! X"
Unfortunately there are horrible nasty people in the world. My advice to you is to remember you are a survivor not a victim. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Could you imagine? She gets to Britain only to get told she’s illegal and flown to Rwanda! I’d chuckle at the debacle but alas she’s still a Britain by birth. She should be afforded the opportunity to change and come back into society. If she’s committed crimes then she’ll be tried accordingly. She’ll never be left alone, 100% under constant surveillance. Monitored internet, phone calls. Her freedom will be nothing but the air she’ll breathe. But on the flip side; she’ll have a story to tell, a book to write, no doubt a BBC drama. I’d just hope a high percentage of the money she makes gets put back into the areas where she was failed. A very complicated issue. " I believe the last thing the UK needs is for her to still get any more publicity spotlight through grisly story chasing by publishers seeking a new controversial memoir to fuel sales of. If she ever is admitted back into the UK, her life will be 24/7 rehabilitation and possibly paying back her debts by spending time in prison for a long time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. Yes agreed! From personal experiance found this to b true from a young family member who was groomed not in same circumstances completely different! Who is now having counciling I spoke with them last week and they truly believed what they were told from age 9 totally feked up their mind! I speak from experience, not a religious sect, and I can assure you all that manipulation is a very powerful form of cohersion and if the person is subjected to the right stimulation anything is possible. Yes this was not a religious sect but as u say very impressionable at young age! In fact u might laugh but I got married at 16 and was told by my first hubby from maybe 2 years in that I was fat ugly and stupid for so many years I believed him 100% and I was an adult by then! X
Unfortunately there are horrible nasty people in the world. My advice to you is to remember you are a survivor not a victim. "Ohh deffo made me who I am now! A very confident woman! X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. Sorry, a child is someone under the age of 12. Shamina was 15 when she flew off to join her ISIS husband and become a female terrorist herself. The way terms are used matters. Society has already in my opinion wrongly equated the legal status of a minor (anybody under the age of 16) with being a child. It has no basis in psychology. Grooming can happen to anybody at any age. It's not just something that happens to individuals who are supposedly vulnerable due to their young age. If the idea is really for Shamina to make change and redeem herself, to show she's fully deradicalised and fit to be a British subject again, sure. Make her work for it. Start her off again on a periodic visa, then indefinite leave to remain, then PR, then back to British citizenship. Every step dependent on her proving that she's no longer who she was at 15 when she left to join ISIS. Quantifiable and qualifiable evidence to show rehabilitation and successful reintegration into British society. That in my opinion is the only way to do it. You can't be serious" I am deadly serious. I'm not just saying this for laughs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. Yes agreed! From personal experiance found this to b true from a young family member who was groomed not in same circumstances completely different! Who is now having counciling I spoke with them last week and they truly believed what they were told from age 9 totally feked up their mind! I speak from experience, not a religious sect, and I can assure you all that manipulation is a very powerful form of cohersion and if the person is subjected to the right stimulation anything is possible. Yes this was not a religious sect but as u say very impressionable at young age! In fact u might laugh but I got married at 16 and was told by my first hubby from maybe 2 years in that I was fat ugly and stupid for so many years I believed him 100% and I was an adult by then! X
Unfortunately there are horrible nasty people in the world. My advice to you is to remember you are a survivor not a victim.
Ohh deffo made me who I am now! A very confident woman! X"Good for you x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My understanding is she was 15 when she made her choice Too young to give consent, sign a contract, vote, marry, or even leave school. Holding her to a decision she made at that age seems unconstitutional. " Not to mention morally bankrupt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My understanding is she was 15 when she made her choice Too young to give consent, sign a contract, vote, marry, or even leave school. Holding her to a decision she made at that age seems unconstitutional. " Going by your logic society should not prosecute people under the age of 16 in juvenile courts then? Those two 15 year olds currently charged with murdering Brianna Ghey shouldn't be facing murder trials then. Why the double standards? We're perfectly capable of holding accountable to extreme lengths in proportion to extreme crimes people under the age of 16, and it has been done in the past and present no less with society's acceptance. It is disjointed to say that someone under the age of 16 is incapable of making certain decisions or giving certain consent due to immaturity, but that immaturity doesn't save them from legal consequences when they commit crimes. And this is no small ASBO-esque crime Shamina Begum has committed. Adults in the UK who are convicted of terrorism charges (doesn't even have to be directly involved in a terror act) often face life imprisonment, and in countries with the death penalty such people often die for their convicted crimes. Viewed from this perspective, stripping Shamina Begum of her British citizenship is already going easy on her. She's free to go anywhere else in the EU to claim asylum if she so wishes. She'd arguably have a higher chance of being accepted by them than by the UK ever again and that's just the inconvenient truth of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My understanding is she was 15 when she made her choice Too young to give consent, sign a contract, vote, marry, or even leave school. Holding her to a decision she made at that age seems unconstitutional. Going by your logic society should not prosecute people under the age of 16 in juvenile courts then? Those two 15 year olds currently charged with murdering Brianna Ghey shouldn't be facing murder trials then. Why the double standards? We're perfectly capable of holding accountable to extreme lengths in proportion to extreme crimes people under the age of 16, and it has been done in the past and present no less with society's acceptance. It is disjointed to say that someone under the age of 16 is incapable of making certain decisions or giving certain consent due to immaturity, but that immaturity doesn't save them from legal consequences when they commit crimes. And this is no small ASBO-esque crime Shamina Begum has committed. Adults in the UK who are convicted of terrorism charges (doesn't even have to be directly involved in a terror act) often face life imprisonment, and in countries with the death penalty such people often die for their convicted crimes. Viewed from this perspective, stripping Shamina Begum of her British citizenship is already going easy on her. She's free to go anywhere else in the EU to claim asylum if she so wishes. She'd arguably have a higher chance of being accepted by them than by the UK ever again and that's just the inconvenient truth of it. " There is a very big difference between not prosecuting a minor and removing citizenship and making them stateless, which by the way is illegal under international law | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also, one small quibble. Nothing in the UK can be deemed unconstitutional when the UK does not have a Constitution to begin with. The only thing that stands in for a constitutional objection role here would be the ECHR. Watch this saga somehow become another Brexit culture war fight if ECHR gets invoked by Shamina's lawyer and supporters in the UK to fight for her British passport to be reinstated. " You are wrong regarding our constitution, we do have one an interpretative constitution not a written one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My understanding is she was 15 when she made her choice Too young to give consent, sign a contract, vote, marry, or even leave school. Holding her to a decision she made at that age seems unconstitutional. Going by your logic society should not prosecute people under the age of 16 in juvenile courts then? Those two 15 year olds currently charged with murdering Brianna Ghey shouldn't be facing murder trials then. Why the double standards? We're perfectly capable of holding accountable to extreme lengths in proportion to extreme crimes people under the age of 16, and it has been done in the past and present no less with society's acceptance. It is disjointed to say that someone under the age of 16 is incapable of making certain decisions or giving certain consent due to immaturity, but that immaturity doesn't save them from legal consequences when they commit crimes. And this is no small ASBO-esque crime Shamina Begum has committed. Adults in the UK who are convicted of terrorism charges (doesn't even have to be directly involved in a terror act) often face life imprisonment, and in countries with the death penalty such people often die for their convicted crimes. Viewed from this perspective, stripping Shamina Begum of her British citizenship is already going easy on her. She's free to go anywhere else in the EU to claim asylum if she so wishes. She'd arguably have a higher chance of being accepted by them than by the UK ever again and that's just the inconvenient truth of it. There is a very big difference between not prosecuting a minor and removing citizenship and making them stateless, which by the way is illegal under international law " If there is one thing I've learnt from my academic studies about international affairs, its that international law means jack if there's no enforcement muscle or impartiality behind them. I wonder which country is going to sanction the UK for making Shamina Begum stateless? Is she worth starting an international incident over? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My understanding is she was 15 when she made her choice Too young to give consent, sign a contract, vote, marry, or even leave school. Holding her to a decision she made at that age seems unconstitutional. Going by your logic society should not prosecute people under the age of 16 in juvenile courts then? Those two 15 year olds currently charged with murdering Brianna Ghey shouldn't be facing murder trials then. Why the double standards? We're perfectly capable of holding accountable to extreme lengths in proportion to extreme crimes people under the age of 16, and it has been done in the past and present no less with society's acceptance. It is disjointed to say that someone under the age of 16 is incapable of making certain decisions or giving certain consent due to immaturity, but that immaturity doesn't save them from legal consequences when they commit crimes. And this is no small ASBO-esque crime Shamina Begum has committed. Adults in the UK who are convicted of terrorism charges (doesn't even have to be directly involved in a terror act) often face life imprisonment, and in countries with the death penalty such people often die for their convicted crimes. Viewed from this perspective, stripping Shamina Begum of her British citizenship is already going easy on her. She's free to go anywhere else in the EU to claim asylum if she so wishes. She'd arguably have a higher chance of being accepted by them than by the UK ever again and that's just the inconvenient truth of it. There is a very big difference between not prosecuting a minor and removing citizenship and making them stateless, which by the way is illegal under international law " The Home Secretary made the decision based on evidence nobody here has seen. The highest court in the land supported this decision to remove her citizenship. So why have they got it wrong and you have got it right? It can only be emotional reasons, because as mentioned, nobody has seen all of the evidence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My understanding is she was 15 when she made her choice Too young to give consent, sign a contract, vote, marry, or even leave school. Holding her to a decision she made at that age seems unconstitutional. " It's almost as bad as joining Isis... Almost. If you murder someone at age 15 then you have still broken the law, even if you're made to believe doing the right thing. A judge isn't going to say, well you were only 15 so it's not really right to put the blame on you. She knew she shouldn't have gone but she did and I don't want her or anyone else that's part or been part of a terrorist group in the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also, one small quibble. Nothing in the UK can be deemed unconstitutional when the UK does not have a Constitution to begin with. The only thing that stands in for a constitutional objection role here would be the ECHR. Watch this saga somehow become another Brexit culture war fight if ECHR gets invoked by Shamina's lawyer and supporters in the UK to fight for her British passport to be reinstated. You are wrong regarding our constitution, we do have one an interpretative constitution not a written one. " Yes. The idea of the gentlemen "English School" elite who all just stick to unwritten norms and conventions. How's that survived with Boris Johnson and every other Tory leader after him? If something is not written, then it can't be enforced, and it cannot be valid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My understanding is she was 15 when she made her choice Too young to give consent, sign a contract, vote, marry, or even leave school. Holding her to a decision she made at that age seems unconstitutional. Going by your logic society should not prosecute people under the age of 16 in juvenile courts then? Those two 15 year olds currently charged with murdering Brianna Ghey shouldn't be facing murder trials then. Why the double standards? We're perfectly capable of holding accountable to extreme lengths in proportion to extreme crimes people under the age of 16, and it has been done in the past and present no less with society's acceptance. It is disjointed to say that someone under the age of 16 is incapable of making certain decisions or giving certain consent due to immaturity, but that immaturity doesn't save them from legal consequences when they commit crimes. And this is no small ASBO-esque crime Shamina Begum has committed. Adults in the UK who are convicted of terrorism charges (doesn't even have to be directly involved in a terror act) often face life imprisonment, and in countries with the death penalty such people often die for their convicted crimes. Viewed from this perspective, stripping Shamina Begum of her British citizenship is already going easy on her. She's free to go anywhere else in the EU to claim asylum if she so wishes. She'd arguably have a higher chance of being accepted by them than by the UK ever again and that's just the inconvenient truth of it. There is a very big difference between not prosecuting a minor and removing citizenship and making them stateless, which by the way is illegal under international law If there is one thing I've learnt from my academic studies about international affairs, its that international law means jack if there's no enforcement muscle or impartiality behind them. I wonder which country is going to sanction the UK for making Shamina Begum stateless? Is she worth starting an international incident over? " Of course she is, she's british and she was abused. She needs help not harm. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My understanding is she was 15 when she made her choice Too young to give consent, sign a contract, vote, marry, or even leave school. Holding her to a decision she made at that age seems unconstitutional. It's almost as bad as joining Isis... Almost. If you murder someone at age 15 then you have still broken the law, even if you're made to believe doing the right thing. A judge isn't going to say, well you were only 15 so it's not really right to put the blame on you. She knew she shouldn't have gone but she did and I don't want her or anyone else that's part or been part of a terrorist group in the country. "
Someone gets it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regardless of whether she is a threat or not she is British, if she has done something wrong she should be tried in a British court. Stripping someone of their nationality sets a very frightening precedent." By joining a “caliphate” she renounced her UK nationality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regardless of whether she is a threat or not she is British, if she has done something wrong she should be tried in a British court. Stripping someone of their nationality sets a very frightening precedent. By joining a “caliphate” she renounced her UK nationality. " She was a groomed child. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My understanding is she was 15 when she made her choice Too young to give consent, sign a contract, vote, marry, or even leave school. Holding her to a decision she made at that age seems unconstitutional. Going by your logic society should not prosecute people under the age of 16 in juvenile courts then? Those two 15 year olds currently charged with murdering Brianna Ghey shouldn't be facing murder trials then. Why the double standards? We're perfectly capable of holding accountable to extreme lengths in proportion to extreme crimes people under the age of 16, and it has been done in the past and present no less with society's acceptance. It is disjointed to say that someone under the age of 16 is incapable of making certain decisions or giving certain consent due to immaturity, but that immaturity doesn't save them from legal consequences when they commit crimes. And this is no small ASBO-esque crime Shamina Begum has committed. Adults in the UK who are convicted of terrorism charges (doesn't even have to be directly involved in a terror act) often face life imprisonment, and in countries with the death penalty such people often die for their convicted crimes. Viewed from this perspective, stripping Shamina Begum of her British citizenship is already going easy on her. She's free to go anywhere else in the EU to claim asylum if she so wishes. She'd arguably have a higher chance of being accepted by them than by the UK ever again and that's just the inconvenient truth of it. There is a very big difference between not prosecuting a minor and removing citizenship and making them stateless, which by the way is illegal under international law If there is one thing I've learnt from my academic studies about international affairs, its that international law means jack if there's no enforcement muscle or impartiality behind them. I wonder which country is going to sanction the UK for making Shamina Begum stateless? Is she worth starting an international incident over? Of course she is, she's british and she was abused. She needs help not harm." Last I checked being stateless doesn't mean you're barred from re-entering the UK. It just means like going anywhere else in the world (assuming you can even get there without flying) you're going have to claim refugee status doing so. Which I'm perfectly fine for her to do. She's not going to be denied help that way. She just doesn't have to necessarily come back to the UK to get that help, in fact it's debatable how much help the UK can even afford her given how comprehensively it has failed her with her initial indoctrination. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regardless of whether she is a threat or not she is British, if she has done something wrong she should be tried in a British court. Stripping someone of their nationality sets a very frightening precedent. By joining a “caliphate” she renounced her UK nationality. She was a groomed child. " 15 is not a child. "Minor" is not equivalent to "child". Go and look up the psychological definition of what a "child" is. Your definition effectively erases teenagehood in its entirety. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regardless of whether she is a threat or not she is British, if she has done something wrong she should be tried in a British court. Stripping someone of their nationality sets a very frightening precedent. By joining a “caliphate” she renounced her UK nationality. She was a groomed child. 15 is not a child. "Minor" is not equivalent to "child". Go and look up the psychological definition of what a "child" is. Your definition effectively erases teenagehood in its entirety. " 15 is a child yes x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regardless of whether she is a threat or not she is British, if she has done something wrong she should be tried in a British court. Stripping someone of their nationality sets a very frightening precedent. By joining a “caliphate” she renounced her UK nationality. She was a groomed child. " She knew what she was joining. They all did, it was across the news and social media. She understood the barbarity of ISIS. She was part of their “morality police” and has blood on her hands. Excusing her as a groomed child assumes she was mentally juvenile (yet still able to get herself to Syria, I don’t know any children who could do that). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regardless of whether she is a threat or not she is British, if she has done something wrong she should be tried in a British court. Stripping someone of their nationality sets a very frightening precedent. By joining a “caliphate” she renounced her UK nationality. She was a groomed child. 15 is not a child. "Minor" is not equivalent to "child". Go and look up the psychological definition of what a "child" is. Your definition effectively erases teenagehood in its entirety. 15 is a child yes x" As defined by laws that have no scientific or empirical basis to them. Political laws made by politicians. But we are digressing now. As stated earlier by myself and others, even if you're a minor/"child" under the age of 16 in the UK, it still doesn't afford you immunity from legal consequences if you commit a crime. And mark my words. There's no way to politically spin it as a case of anything other than "she committed a crime and she got away with it" if her citizenship as a British subject gets reinstated. In case you haven't noticed, sticking up for terrorists and their sympathisers isn't exactly socially acceptable in most societies throughout the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"15-year-old children groomed by paedophiles... "She's only a child" 15-year-old children groomed by religious nut jobs... "She knew what she was doing"" Not the same thing at all. A victim of a paedophile remains a victim, but if that person goes on to also abuse others, they become an offender. Being a victim does not excuse being an offender in British law, it might carry some weight in mitigation, but it does not excuse the abuse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regardless of whether she is a threat or not she is British, if she has done something wrong she should be tried in a British court. Stripping someone of their nationality sets a very frightening precedent. By joining a “caliphate” she renounced her UK nationality. She was a groomed child. 15 is not a child. "Minor" is not equivalent to "child". Go and look up the psychological definition of what a "child" is. Your definition effectively erases teenagehood in its entirety. 15 is a child yes x As defined by laws that have no scientific or empirical basis to them. Political laws made by politicians. But we are digressing now. As stated earlier by myself and others, even if you're a minor/"child" under the age of 16 in the UK, it still doesn't afford you immunity from legal consequences if you commit a crime. And mark my words. There's no way to politically spin it as a case of anything other than "she committed a crime and she got away with it" if her citizenship as a British subject gets reinstated. In case you haven't noticed, sticking up for terrorists and their sympathisers isn't exactly socially acceptable in most societies throughout the world. " I broadly agree with your sentiment, however, any person under the chronological age of 18 years is fenced in British law to be a child (see children’s act 1989 and 2004). That being said, this is a dead duck in this matter as being a child is not justifiable rationale for committing offences of any form. I don’t know the answer to whether or not she should or could be reintegrated into British society, but I do know that I personally would not hire her to babysit my children. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just heard she’s not allowed back. Someone in high place saw sense let her rot where she is " Never in doubt.
Who wants to bet her lawyer pulls the ECHR card next? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just heard she’s not allowed back. Someone in high place saw sense let her rot where she is Never in doubt.
Who wants to bet her lawyer pulls the ECHR card next? "100% they will, and that’s where I get off the fence! The decision is made, stand by it! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just heard she’s not allowed back. Someone in high place saw sense let her rot where she is " The right decision I feel | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just heard she’s not allowed back. Someone in high place saw sense let her rot where she is Never in doubt.
Who wants to bet her lawyer pulls the ECHR card next? "How much do we think this has cost the tax payer to date? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just heard she’s not allowed back. Someone in high place saw sense let her rot where she is Never in doubt.
Who wants to bet her lawyer pulls the ECHR card next? "Well as we are not part of Europe anymore ( blows raspberry  ) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just heard she’s not allowed back. Someone in high place saw sense let her rot where she is Never in doubt.
Who wants to bet her lawyer pulls the ECHR card next?
Well as we are not part of Europe anymore ( blows raspberry )"Hahaha | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just heard she’s not allowed back. Someone in high place saw sense let her rot where she is Never in doubt.
Who wants to bet her lawyer pulls the ECHR card next?
Well as we are not part of Europe anymore ( blows raspberry )"Brexit dividend and all that! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All three of her children have died. Should that count " Only to those that think emotion trumps fact | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All three of her children have died. Should that count " Well it wasn't a consideration and neither should it be I wonder how many deaths of other peoples children has she caused? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All three of her children have died. Should that count Well it wasn't a consideration and neither should it be I wonder how many deaths of other peoples children has she caused? " Agreed, nobody will take any pleasure in knowing her children died, but that can’t excuse her actions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just heard she’s not allowed back. Someone in high place saw sense let her rot where she is " Yes just saw that sadly!  x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just heard she’s not allowed back. Someone in high place saw sense let her rot where she is Never in doubt.
Who wants to bet her lawyer pulls the ECHR card next?
How much do we think this has cost the tax payer to date? "How much will it cost if she ever comes back, we would have to keep an eye on her and support her for the rest of her life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just heard she’s not allowed back. Someone in high place saw sense let her rot where she is Yes just saw that sadly! x"Why sadly put money the vast majority of people in the country don’t want her back here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just heard she’s not allowed back. Someone in high place saw sense let her rot where she is Yes just saw that sadly! x
Why sadly put money the vast majority of people in the country don’t want her back here. "I'm entitled to my opinion same as you no?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly." What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? " It’s that they have the power at all, not how it’s used. The job of the courts is to decide on whether something is within the law, not whether the law itself is a good thing. I just don’t think it’s the sort of law that is good for a government to have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? It’s that they have the power at all, not how it’s used. The job of the courts is to decide on whether something is within the law, not whether the law itself is a good thing. I just don’t think it’s the sort of law that is good for a government to have." Curious question. Would you be saying the same thing if it was any other political party other than the Conservatives in power? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly." true but she made her decisions she should have to deal with the consiquences of her actions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? It’s that they have the power at all, not how it’s used. The job of the courts is to decide on whether something is within the law, not whether the law itself is a good thing. I just don’t think it’s the sort of law that is good for a government to have. Curious question. Would you be saying the same thing if it was any other political party other than the Conservatives in power? " Absolutely, no government should have the power to decide a British person is no longer British. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. true but she made her decisions she should have to deal with the consiquences of her actions" I absolutely think she should face the consequences of her actions, she should be tried in a British court for them and face her punishment as a Briton. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Brexit dividend and all that!" I do hope that the smiley face means you're joking, and are well aware that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) with its 46 signatories is nothing at all to do with Brexit and the EU..." You're right that the ECHR was not created by the EU (notwithstanding the utterly confusing "Council of Europe" and "European Council" namesakes which don't help matters). But the ECHR is intrinsically tied into Brexit and the EU due to it being baked into the Good Friday Agreement, which in itself is a huge issue between the UK and EU at the moment. Should Shamina decide to appeal her citizenship stripping through invoking the ECHR, it will only add more fuel to the fire stoked by politicians who wish to take the UK out of the ECHR for entirely unrelated Brexit reasons. There are a lot of overlapping wheels in motion here, a lot of connections which is more than likely to result in unintended consequences and ramifications. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. true but she made her decisions she should have to deal with the consiquences of her actions I absolutely think she should face the consequences of her actions, she should be tried in a British court for them and face her punishment as a Briton." Could be years before this happens. And in the meantime what is the UK supposed to do with her? Keep her in preventive custody till she finally stands trial? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. true but she made her decisions she should have to deal with the consiquences of her actions I absolutely think she should face the consequences of her actions, she should be tried in a British court for them and face her punishment as a Briton. Could be years before this happens. And in the meantime what is the UK supposed to do with her? Keep her in preventive custody till she finally stands trial? " If the courts determine that she should be kept in custody, then yes. That’s what we do with criminals. This isn’t about Shamima Begum as far as I’m concerned, it’s about a much bigger principle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? It’s that they have the power at all, not how it’s used. The job of the courts is to decide on whether something is within the law, not whether the law itself is a good thing. I just don’t think it’s the sort of law that is good for a government to have. Curious question. Would you be saying the same thing if it was any other political party other than the Conservatives in power? Absolutely, no government should have the power to decide a British person is no longer British." This. It's a really worrying precedent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? " The court stated that they belive its not for them to decide and threw it back to the government, which is a total cop out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. true but she made her decisions she should have to deal with the consiquences of her actions I absolutely think she should face the consequences of her actions, she should be tried in a British court for them and face her punishment as a Briton. Could be years before this happens. And in the meantime what is the UK supposed to do with her? Keep her in preventive custody till she finally stands trial? If the courts determine that she should be kept in custody, then yes. That’s what we do with criminals. This isn’t about Shamima Begum as far as I’m concerned, it’s about a much bigger principle." and were all expected to pay for this with our tax's. After she fled to join isis and posibly attack out counrty? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? The court stated that they belive its not for them to decide and threw it back to the government, which is a total cop out. " The court confirmed the Home Secretary made a decision he was allowed to make and dismissed the appeal. Where is the "cop out" in that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? The court stated that they belive its not for them to decide and threw it back to the government, which is a total cop out. The court confirmed the Home Secretary made a decision he was allowed to make and dismissed the appeal. Where is the "cop out" in that?" Then why was the case even allowed to be listed in the first place? If there was no case to answer then it should never have been heard. Its ridiculous | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. true but she made her decisions she should have to deal with the consiquences of her actions I absolutely think she should face the consequences of her actions, she should be tried in a British court for them and face her punishment as a Briton. Could be years before this happens. And in the meantime what is the UK supposed to do with her? Keep her in preventive custody till she finally stands trial? " Yes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? The court stated that they belive its not for them to decide and threw it back to the government, which is a total cop out. The court confirmed the Home Secretary made a decision he was allowed to make and dismissed the appeal. Where is the "cop out" in that? Then why was the case even allowed to be listed in the first place? If there was no case to answer then it should never have been heard. Its ridiculous " Because she has a right to appeal, it is how decisions are tested. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. " Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? The court stated that they belive its not for them to decide and threw it back to the government, which is a total cop out. The court confirmed the Home Secretary made a decision he was allowed to make and dismissed the appeal. Where is the "cop out" in that? Then why was the case even allowed to be listed in the first place? If there was no case to answer then it should never have been heard. Its ridiculous Because she has a right to appeal, it is how decisions are tested." The court has made it clear that its not a matter for the courts. Quite honestly this whole situation makes me feel sick and ashamed to be British, we should be better than this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? The court stated that they belive its not for them to decide and threw it back to the government, which is a total cop out. The court confirmed the Home Secretary made a decision he was allowed to make and dismissed the appeal. Where is the "cop out" in that? Then why was the case even allowed to be listed in the first place? If there was no case to answer then it should never have been heard. Its ridiculous Because she has a right to appeal, it is how decisions are tested. The court has made it clear that its not a matter for the courts. Quite honestly this whole situation makes me feel sick and ashamed to be British, we should be better than this. " What exactly are you ashamed of? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? The court stated that they belive its not for them to decide and threw it back to the government, which is a total cop out. The court confirmed the Home Secretary made a decision he was allowed to make and dismissed the appeal. Where is the "cop out" in that? Then why was the case even allowed to be listed in the first place? If there was no case to answer then it should never have been heard. Its ridiculous Because she has a right to appeal, it is how decisions are tested. The court has made it clear that its not a matter for the courts. Quite honestly this whole situation makes me feel sick and ashamed to be British, we should be better than this. What exactly are you ashamed of? " I would have thought that's pretty obvious really. But then I obviously have a more open mind than yourself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason." We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? The court stated that they belive its not for them to decide and threw it back to the government, which is a total cop out. The court confirmed the Home Secretary made a decision he was allowed to make and dismissed the appeal. Where is the "cop out" in that? Then why was the case even allowed to be listed in the first place? If there was no case to answer then it should never have been heard. Its ridiculous Because she has a right to appeal, it is how decisions are tested. The court has made it clear that its not a matter for the courts. Quite honestly this whole situation makes me feel sick and ashamed to be British, we should be better than this. " x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think." This is a test case and a 1st step. That's the issue. Especially whenever a toxic government is in charge that happily plays up fears of foreigners & others at every opportunity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today iShamima Begum, who tomorrow? The trouble with things like this is that it’s all very well when it’s something you agree with, what happens when it’s someone you support, or someone like you? Giving the government the power to say a British person is not a British person anymore is not something we should do lightly. What makes you think this was done lightly? It has been challenged at the highest court in the land who agreed with the Home Secretary, is that not enough? The court stated that they belive its not for them to decide and threw it back to the government, which is a total cop out. The court confirmed the Home Secretary made a decision he was allowed to make and dismissed the appeal. Where is the "cop out" in that? Then why was the case even allowed to be listed in the first place? If there was no case to answer then it should never have been heard. Its ridiculous Because she has a right to appeal, it is how decisions are tested. The court has made it clear that its not a matter for the courts. Quite honestly this whole situation makes me feel sick and ashamed to be British, we should be better than this. What exactly are you ashamed of? I would have thought that's pretty obvious really. But then I obviously have a more open mind than yourself" You may be more emotionally led perhaps and not one for fact? You are ashamed to be British but our laws will still allow for further challenges to this decision, and it could still be overturned, not something to be be ashamed of in my opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason." I’m not worried about that hypothetical situation at all. Let’s convene in a couple of years and see if it happens outside of this precedent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. This is a test case and a 1st step. That's the issue. Especially whenever a toxic government is in charge that happily plays up fears of foreigners & others at every opportunity." It is not a test case, people lose their British citizenship every year | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. This is a test case and a 1st step. That's the issue. Especially whenever a toxic government is in charge that happily plays up fears of foreigners & others at every opportunity. It is not a test case, people lose their British citizenship every year" We'll see what happens going forwards. I'd be v happy to be wrong about my fears here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think." She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. " She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. " They've been playing to the right wing nasties for ages, sadly. Another low point was Braverman talking of an invasion. Then refusing to apologise or moderate her language when confronted by a holocaust survivor on the issue of talking in such a way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. " OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. They've been playing to the right wing nasties for ages, sadly. Another low point was Braverman talking of an invasion. Then refusing to apologise or moderate her language when confronted by a holocaust survivor on the issue of talking in such a way. " You are taking this down the wrong path in my opinion, this thread is about the citizenship being removed of a person who joined a terrorist organisation. You know want to make it about racism and Braverman... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. They've been playing to the right wing nasties for ages, sadly. Another low point was Braverman talking of an invasion. Then refusing to apologise or moderate her language when confronted by a holocaust survivor on the issue of talking in such a way. You are taking this down the wrong path in my opinion, this thread is about the citizenship being removed of a person who joined a terrorist organisation. You know want to make it about racism and Braverman..." I don't want to make this thread anything. I was simply making a response to another post. This thread will go its own way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. They've been playing to the right wing nasties for ages, sadly. Another low point was Braverman talking of an invasion. Then refusing to apologise or moderate her language when confronted by a holocaust survivor on the issue of talking in such a way. You are taking this down the wrong path in my opinion, this thread is about the citizenship being removed of a person who joined a terrorist organisation. You know want to make it about racism and Braverman..." It's only the wrong path because you don't like the truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country?" You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. They've been playing to the right wing nasties for ages, sadly. Another low point was Braverman talking of an invasion. Then refusing to apologise or moderate her language when confronted by a holocaust survivor on the issue of talking in such a way. You are taking this down the wrong path in my opinion, this thread is about the citizenship being removed of a person who joined a terrorist organisation. You know want to make it about racism and Braverman... It's only the wrong path because you don't like the truth. " I like facts, not emotional knee jerking based on what I think is right. So now you understand that about me, tell me what it is I don't like about the truth? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country?" The justice system does not support rapists, murderers or child abusers. Each case is individually dealt with and the relevant punishment applied. The same has been done with Ms Begum's case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too?" I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. " Or you could put faith in the justice system and keep an eye on the appeal. You could also take time to look at the other 700+ cases, and campaign if you feel the law is wrong. I don't think you will though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. " The woman is a complete waste of skin! Let’s hope she rots quietly somewhere and the country doesn’t waste another penny on her | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. " You are joking right? Even children know the difference between right and wrong. She knew exactly what she was doing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. They've been playing to the right wing nasties for ages, sadly. Another low point was Braverman talking of an invasion. Then refusing to apologise or moderate her language when confronted by a holocaust survivor on the issue of talking in such a way. " It was an invasion and still is of people fleeing from nothing to come to this country and live on benefits | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. They've been playing to the right wing nasties for ages, sadly. Another low point was Braverman talking of an invasion. Then refusing to apologise or moderate her language when confronted by a holocaust survivor on the issue of talking in such a way. It was an invasion and still is of people fleeing from nothing to come to this country and live on benefits " It was not & is not an invasion. I suggest you listen to the holocaust survivor who challenged such inflammatory language. I reckon she knows what she's talking about in that area. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. They've been playing to the right wing nasties for ages, sadly. Another low point was Braverman talking of an invasion. Then refusing to apologise or moderate her language when confronted by a holocaust survivor on the issue of talking in such a way. It was an invasion and still is of people fleeing from nothing to come to this country and live on benefits " Ohh please!!!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. " The same 'child' who was unfazed by seeing severed heads in a dustbin....the same 'child' who said that the Manchester bombings were justified because of Syrian air strikes... she wants mercy shown to her, yet believes the annihilation of innocent people was justified? The 'child' who helped sew suicide bombers into their jackets.... But it's OK, she was a child.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. The same 'child' who was unfazed by seeing severed heads in a dustbin....the same 'child' who said that the Manchester bombings were justified because of Syrian air strikes... she wants mercy shown to her, yet believes the annihilation of innocent people was justified? The 'child' who helped sew suicide bombers into their jackets.... But it's OK, she was a child...." Well said | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. The same 'child' who was unfazed by seeing severed heads in a dustbin....the same 'child' who said that the Manchester bombings were justified because of Syrian air strikes... she wants mercy shown to her, yet believes the annihilation of innocent people was justified? The 'child' who helped sew suicide bombers into their jackets.... But it's OK, she was a child.... Well said " My two pence: 1. Regardless of being a “child” (I really wouldn’t say a 15yr old is really a child) she needs to answer for her actions. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that she has not shown remorse or rescinded her beliefs? 2. If we believe it is right that she can commit crimes in Syria and then should not be deported home to the UK then where do we stand on immigrants committing crimes in the UK? Surely they cannot then be deported to the country of their birth either? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. The same 'child' who was unfazed by seeing severed heads in a dustbin....the same 'child' who said that the Manchester bombings were justified because of Syrian air strikes... she wants mercy shown to her, yet believes the annihilation of innocent people was justified? The 'child' who helped sew suicide bombers into their jackets.... But it's OK, she was a child.... Well said My two pence: 1. Regardless of being a “child” (I really wouldn’t say a 15yr old is really a child) she needs to answer for her actions. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that she has not shown remorse or rescinded her beliefs? 2. If we believe it is right that she can commit crimes in Syria and then should not be deported home to the UK then where do we stand on immigrants committing crimes in the UK? Surely they cannot then be deported to the country of their birth either?" My two pence: Fuck her | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. The same 'child' who was unfazed by seeing severed heads in a dustbin....the same 'child' who said that the Manchester bombings were justified because of Syrian air strikes... she wants mercy shown to her, yet believes the annihilation of innocent people was justified? The 'child' who helped sew suicide bombers into their jackets.... But it's OK, she was a child.... Well said My two pence: 1. Regardless of being a “child” (I really wouldn’t say a 15yr old is really a child) she needs to answer for her actions. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that she has not shown remorse or rescinded her beliefs? 2. If we believe it is right that she can commit crimes in Syria and then should not be deported home to the UK then where do we stand on immigrants committing crimes in the UK? Surely they cannot then be deported to the country of their birth either? My two pence: Fuck her" Well apparently that was precisely what she was groomed for by ISIS fighters. But that aside, what is your view on my second point? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. The same 'child' who was unfazed by seeing severed heads in a dustbin....the same 'child' who said that the Manchester bombings were justified because of Syrian air strikes... she wants mercy shown to her, yet believes the annihilation of innocent people was justified? The 'child' who helped sew suicide bombers into their jackets.... But it's OK, she was a child.... Well said My two pence: 1. Regardless of being a “child” (I really wouldn’t say a 15yr old is really a child) she needs to answer for her actions. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that she has not shown remorse or rescinded her beliefs? 2. If we believe it is right that she can commit crimes in Syria and then should not be deported home to the UK then where do we stand on immigrants committing crimes in the UK? Surely they cannot then be deported to the country of their birth either?" My 'it's ok,she's only a child' was in irony as a response to the comment above mine.... You're right, she knew exactly what she was doing when she went to Syria. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. The same 'child' who was unfazed by seeing severed heads in a dustbin....the same 'child' who said that the Manchester bombings were justified because of Syrian air strikes... she wants mercy shown to her, yet believes the annihilation of innocent people was justified? The 'child' who helped sew suicide bombers into their jackets.... But it's OK, she was a child.... Well said My two pence: 1. Regardless of being a “child” (I really wouldn’t say a 15yr old is really a child) she needs to answer for her actions. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that she has not shown remorse or rescinded her beliefs? 2. If we believe it is right that she can commit crimes in Syria and then should not be deported home to the UK then where do we stand on immigrants committing crimes in the UK? Surely they cannot then be deported to the country of their birth either? My two pence: Love it straight to the point x Fuck her"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. The same 'child' who was unfazed by seeing severed heads in a dustbin....the same 'child' who said that the Manchester bombings were justified because of Syrian air strikes... she wants mercy shown to her, yet believes the annihilation of innocent people was justified? The 'child' who helped sew suicide bombers into their jackets.... But it's OK, she was a child.... Well said My two pence: 1. Regardless of being a “child” (I really wouldn’t say a 15yr old is really a child) she needs to answer for her actions. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that she has not shown remorse or rescinded her beliefs? 2. If we believe it is right that she can commit crimes in Syria and then should not be deported home to the UK then where do we stand on immigrants committing crimes in the UK? Surely they cannot then be deported to the country of their birth either? My 'it's ok,she's only a child' was in irony as a response to the comment above mine.... You're right, she knew exactly what she was doing when she went to Syria. " I knew that/could tell. I was just adding further thoughts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regardless of whether you think a 15 year old is a child, in the eyes of the law she was….. And without wanting to to throw a stick of dynamite into the thread if it had been a white girl running off to be an Isis bride we would all be screaming that she was a victim of grooming! Being left stateless is against the United Nations convention on human rights… If she has committed a crime which contravene uk law then let her face a jury in the uk! " I wouldn't...my response would be the same. You make your choice | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regardless of whether you think a 15 year old is a child, in the eyes of the law she was….. And without wanting to to throw a stick of dynamite into the thread if it had been a white girl running off to be an Isis bride we would all be screaming that she was a victim of grooming! Being left stateless is against the United Nations convention on human rights… If she has committed a crime which contravene uk law then let her face a jury in the uk! " The voice of reason as always Fabio. I'm not defending her. But most 15 year olds are as dumb as a box of frogs. And I don't mean the French. But I think she has committed an act of treason and lost her rights regardless of her ethnic background. The whole thing is a fucking mess that's for sure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Regardless of whether you think a 15 year old is a child, in the eyes of the law she was….. And without wanting to to throw a stick of dynamite into the thread if it had been a white girl running off to be an Isis bride we would all be screaming that she was a victim of grooming! Being left stateless is against the United Nations convention on human rights… If she has committed a crime which contravene uk law then let her face a jury in the uk! " Assumptions assumptions, I thought you were more rounded than that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putting her age to one side for a second. Im uncomfortable that the UK can risk making someone stateless because they believe the person could seek citizenship elsewhere. That feels shakey to me and different to someone who has recognised dual citizenship. Unless Pakistan are compelled to grant anyone citizenship (and she can do so from outside of Pakistan) it's a problematic. Morally it's even worse in my opinion. For a country that is so protective of its boreders of unwanted foreigners, the flip side of the coin is we can't cast out our trash. And now the age thing. There were riots because a 25yo asked a 15yo for her number. Yet we are also happy to say a (probably) groomed 15yo should own her actions. There is nuance between the two for sure ... But we (as a nation) seem to flip between a 15yo being a child to an adult so easily. However the citizenship and the age are imo two sperate questions that get conflated. " Hovis, I applaud your post - just an aside - she doesn't have Pakistani heritage, it's Bangladeshi...but the "problem" is exacerbated by the fact that Bangladesh have refused her citizenship, saying it's Britain's issue, not theirs, as she was born here, thereby putting the UK in the hot seat. Similar situation with Jack Letts, aka Jihadi Jack and the Canadian authorities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Putting her age to one side for a second. Im uncomfortable that the UK can risk making someone stateless because they believe the person could seek citizenship elsewhere. That feels shakey to me and different to someone who has recognised dual citizenship. Unless Pakistan are compelled to grant anyone citizenship (and she can do so from outside of Pakistan) it's a problematic. Morally it's even worse in my opinion. For a country that is so protective of its boreders of unwanted foreigners, the flip side of the coin is we can't cast out our trash. And now the age thing. There were riots because a 25yo asked a 15yo for her number. Yet we are also happy to say a (probably) groomed 15yo should own her actions. There is nuance between the two for sure ... But we (as a nation) seem to flip between a 15yo being a child to an adult so easily. However the citizenship and the age are imo two sperate questions that get conflated. Hovis, I applaud your post - just an aside - she doesn't have Pakistani heritage, it's Bangladeshi...but the "problem" is exacerbated by the fact that Bangladesh have refused her citizenship, saying it's Britain's issue, not theirs, as she was born here, thereby putting the UK in the hot seat. Similar situation with Jack Letts, aka Jihadi Jack and the Canadian authorities." thanks for the correction. I was being lazy and going by memory. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back " Do you think she's a risk? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. " If you watch the latest documentary about her it doesn’t show an innocent groomed child but a clever devious evil little bitch who isn’t at all sorry for what she did. Only things she’s sorry about is being caught and not being allowed to come back here and be housed and supported for the rest of her days. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back Do you think she's a risk? " I think if the authorities believe she has broken uk laws… she should stand trial in a uk court… and if found guilty then go to a uk prison | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back Do you think she's a risk? I think if the authorities believe she has broken uk laws… she should stand trial in a uk court… and if found guilty then go to a uk prison " And I respect your opinion but it's not mine | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back Do you think she's a risk? I think if the authorities believe she has broken uk laws… she should stand trial in a uk court… and if found guilty then go to a uk prison And I respect your opinion but it's not mine " So is a 15 year old in the eyes of the law an adult or a child? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back Do you think she's a risk? I think if the authorities believe she has broken uk laws… she should stand trial in a uk court… and if found guilty then go to a uk prison And I respect your opinion but it's not mine So is a 15 year old in the eyes of the law an adult or a child? " She's a risk to this country as her actions and statements have confirmed. That's good enough for me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back Do you think she's a risk? I think if the authorities believe she has broken uk laws… she should stand trial in a uk court… and if found guilty then go to a uk prison And I respect your opinion but it's not mine So is a 15 year old in the eyes of the law an adult or a child? She's a risk to this country as her actions and statements have confirmed. That's good enough for me " That is question avoidance…. Should a 15 year old be treated in the eyes of the law as an adult or a child? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’m not planning on joining a Caliphate with murderous intentions anytime soon. If I was I would give this judgement some thought so yes a precedent has been set. Are you truly this naive or just pretending? If a government can remove citizenship for 1 reason, it can remove it for another. That's the really worrying precedent bit. We could be sleepwalking into a situation where our government can remove the citienship of anyone whenever they want for any reason. We really are not sleepwalking into that situation unless you want to dramatise this for the sake of stirring up fear. The home Secretary cannot remove the citizenship of Someone who was born British and has no other nationality. They cannot be deprived of their citizenship in any circumstances. In other circumstances of people losing their British citizenship, it is not as straight forward as removing who they want, when they want. This case in itself should give you an idea of how decisions like this are challenged and not as aesy as you think. She is being used as a political football, its that simple. The current government are playing to the right wing extremists. She is being used by the media and playing you just lovely. The law is the law, this is what you are failing to grasp. It will continue to be tested. OK, so as a society we support rapists, murderers, child abusers etc etc Surley if an of these people have dual nationality, which she didn't, they should be deported on the next flight out of the country? You can see that each case is based on evidence, severity and risk to the public? The courts have so far supported the then Home Secretary's decision to remove citizenship. Over 700 people have gone through the same process in the last 10 years, some for fraud , they were not who they said they were, and others for the risk to the public as above. Are you going to show interest in those too? I have no idea how you can defend this, she was a child, a child that was groomed in to taking the actions she took. If you can't see that then I take pity on you. We as a society need to be better than this. I'm not saying she shouldn't answer for her actions, of course she should but answers should be made here in the the country of her birth. I'm done here. If you watch the latest documentary about her it doesn’t show an innocent groomed child but a clever devious evil little bitch who isn’t at all sorry for what she did. Only things she’s sorry about is being caught and not being allowed to come back here and be housed and supported for the rest of her days. " it is possible (and indeed plausible) that a groomed 15yo who spends 8 years plus in a cult will come across as evil. That is a big part of the issue... She is both likely groomed yet dangerous to public safety (to paraphrase the judges findings). And legally the saftey aspect can trump the fact she was likely groomed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back Do you think she's a risk? I think if the authorities believe she has broken uk laws… she should stand trial in a uk court… and if found guilty then go to a uk prison And I respect your opinion but it's not mine So is a 15 year old in the eyes of the law an adult or a child? She's a risk to this country as her actions and statements have confirmed. That's good enough for me That is question avoidance…. Should a 15 year old be treated in the eyes of the law as an adult or a child? " Question avoidance? I gave you credit for your opinion and you want to argue? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back Do you think she's a risk? I think if the authorities believe she has broken uk laws… she should stand trial in a uk court… and if found guilty then go to a uk prison And I respect your opinion but it's not mine So is a 15 year old in the eyes of the law an adult or a child? She's a risk to this country as her actions and statements have confirmed. That's good enough for me That is question avoidance…. Should a 15 year old be treated in the eyes of the law as an adult or a child? " ...I don't want to be flippant, but by the looks of things, it seems to depend on who they were groomed by, as someone mentioned earlier... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back Do you think she's a risk? I think if the authorities believe she has broken uk laws… she should stand trial in a uk court… and if found guilty then go to a uk prison And I respect your opinion but it's not mine So is a 15 year old in the eyes of the law an adult or a child? " Just googled it a child of 12 can be prosecuted in UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back Do you think she's a risk? I think if the authorities believe she has broken uk laws… she should stand trial in a uk court… and if found guilty then go to a uk prison And I respect your opinion but it's not mine So is a 15 year old in the eyes of the law an adult or a child? Just googled it a child of 12 can be prosecuted in UK " And if a “child” of 12 can be prosecuted in the uk then prosecute her under uk laws if you believe those have been broken… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back Do you think she's a risk? I think if the authorities believe she has broken uk laws… she should stand trial in a uk court… and if found guilty then go to a uk prison And I respect your opinion but it's not mine So is a 15 year old in the eyes of the law an adult or a child? Just googled it a child of 12 can be prosecuted in UK And if a “child” of 12 can be prosecuted in the uk then prosecute her under uk laws if you believe those have been broken… " Why? She left these shores and engaged in acts against the people of the UK. She can rot where she is as far as I'm concerned | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back " The justice system is giving her every chance to challenge decisions. So far the home secretary has been proven to be right in his decision. This also covers her right to duel nationality and removing her citizenship. You throw this into the mix in passive, aggressive way.. "And without wanting to to throw a stick of dynamite into the thread if it had been a white girl running off to be an Isis bride we would all be screaming that she was a victim of grooming"! You knew it was dynamite... Why do you think that we would all be screaming victim of grooming if she had been white? I'm interested in hearing your comments, but I wont expect them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back The justice system is giving her every chance to challenge decisions. So far the home secretary has been proven to be right in his decision. This also covers her right to duel nationality and removing her citizenship. You throw this into the mix in passive, aggressive way.. "And without wanting to to throw a stick of dynamite into the thread if it had been a white girl running off to be an Isis bride we would all be screaming that she was a victim of grooming"! You knew it was dynamite... Why do you think that we would all be screaming victim of grooming if she had been white? I'm interested in hearing your comments, but I wont expect them. " If it was one of my kids I wouldn't want them back in the country. She knew where she was going and what they did and do. I'd like anyone that does the same as her to get the same treatment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reports that she may find out today if she can return to the UK. She is now 23 and she has Begum for 8 years. Is the UK using her for political gain ?" . Of course they are, to deflect all those coming in illegally. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back The justice system is giving her every chance to challenge decisions. So far the home secretary has been proven to be right in his decision. This also covers her right to duel nationality and removing her citizenship. You throw this into the mix in passive, aggressive way.. "And without wanting to to throw a stick of dynamite into the thread if it had been a white girl running off to be an Isis bride we would all be screaming that she was a victim of grooming"! You knew it was dynamite... Why do you think that we would all be screaming victim of grooming if she had been white? I'm interested in hearing your comments, but I wont expect them. " You beat me to it. I agree with that. Fabio was being deliberately provocative with the “white girl” comment. I have not seen anyone come back on the point I made about their views on immigrants who commit crimes in the UK being deported to their country of birth. Surely the same principle applies here. Much as she should rot in jail, as a person born in the UK then she is our problem and it should be a British prison. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. I think both the above posts set out exactly where the divide in opinion is. Was she a victim, or was she complicit. I don’t think there will be a coming together of these opposing opinions. Whatever decision is arrived at a large number will see it to be wrong. " Regardless if she was complicit or a victim , she was groomed and radicalised in the U.K. and was a British citizen. She should be bought home and face justice in the U.K., not be a problem for another country. This is v worrying for ‘British’ justice that your rights as a British national can be stripped away by the Home Secretary without due process. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. I think both the above posts set out exactly where the divide in opinion is. Was she a victim, or was she complicit. I don’t think there will be a coming together of these opposing opinions. Whatever decision is arrived at a large number will see it to be wrong. Regardless if she was complicit or a victim , she was groomed and radicalised in the U.K. and was a British citizen. She should be bought home and face justice in the U.K., not be a problem for another country. This is v worrying for ‘British’ justice that your rights as a British national can be stripped away by the Home Secretary without due process. " The Home Secretary followed due process, the proof of this is shown by the decisions of the courts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would she be safe coming back here? Such a high profile case and she hasn't been particularly camera shy, she would be a target for someone." Hopefully she would | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would she be safe coming back here? Such a high profile case and she hasn't been particularly camera shy, she would be a target for someone. Hopefully she would " You want her to be murdered? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the uk authorities have taken away her citizenship on the basis that because her dad is from Bangladesh she can get citizenship there…. They have said that she is not automatically entitled, and she has never been there! I’m no fan… but you can’t leave someone stateless… that sets dangerous precedent all over the place If the Home Secretary thinks she is a national security risk… they can set certain conditions on her coming back The justice system is giving her every chance to challenge decisions. So far the home secretary has been proven to be right in his decision. This also covers her right to duel nationality and removing her citizenship. You throw this into the mix in passive, aggressive way.. "And without wanting to to throw a stick of dynamite into the thread if it had been a white girl running off to be an Isis bride we would all be screaming that she was a victim of grooming"! You knew it was dynamite... Why do you think that we would all be screaming victim of grooming if she had been white? I'm interested in hearing your comments, but I wont expect them. If it was one of my kids I wouldn't want them back in the country. She knew where she was going and what they did and do. I'd like anyone that does the same as her to get the same treatment. " She should be brought back here, face trial and then punished | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She should not be allowed back. She chose her path to marry and fly out to join someone in becoming a terrorist. She's not recanted or disowned her beliefs and support of Islamic terrorism. And above all else, I find it abhorrent how many adults are so keen to infantilise her for "a way out" by claiming that she's somehow a trafficking victim or that as a teenager she lacked maturity and hence had absolutely no idea nor agency nor free will in her decisions and actions. She's the best example of "you made your bed, now you can lie in it". I don't care how politically unpopular this opinion is, and I'm fairly confident that there will be people who agree with some, if not all of what I've expressed save for the fact that they dare not openly say it for fear of cancellation. She was a child, a child that was groomed by a religious sect. She deserves the opportunity to make change and prove herself. Any other view shows nothing more than a narrow minded view on the victims of these groups. I think both the above posts set out exactly where the divide in opinion is. Was she a victim, or was she complicit. I don’t think there will be a coming together of these opposing opinions. Whatever decision is arrived at a large number will see it to be wrong. Regardless if she was complicit or a victim , she was groomed and radicalised in the U.K. and was a British citizen. She should be bought home and face justice in the U.K., not be a problem for another country. This is v worrying for ‘British’ justice that your rights as a British national can be stripped away by the Home Secretary without due process. The Home Secretary followed due process, the proof of this is shown by the decisions of the courts. " Because the laws were recently changed to allow this. The principle remains the same - as has been said elsewhere this targets British citizens whose parents were not born in the U.K. and pushes our problems onto countries who can ill afford it. Does nothing for the U.K. standing in the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""She was made stateless using the fact that her parents were not born here, so the same thing could not be done for someone with British born parents. Different rules for different British people" Exactly! The difference between what used to be described as "British by birth" and "British other than by birth" I consider the former a privilege which can - and in this case has been - removed. I'm British "other than by birth" and that couldn't be taken away from me even if I were to join ISIS or whatever!" Why is someone less British if they were born here but their parents were not? I mean why stop there? What about grandparents? How about anyone who doesn’t have pure Celtic Briton DNA having the only right to being British? We can remove citizenship from all those people with Saxon, Viking and Norman DNA. She’s British. She’s our problem. She should be dealt with by our legal system like any other traitor. Her extenuating circumstances may be taken into consideration but then so too does her apparent lack of remorse etc. If not then we have no moral grounds to repatriate immigrants who commit crimes in the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""She was made stateless using the fact that her parents were not born here, so the same thing could not be done for someone with British born parents. Different rules for different British people" Exactly! The difference between what used to be described as "British by birth" and "British other than by birth" I consider the former a privilege which can - and in this case has been - removed. I'm British "other than by birth" and that couldn't be taken away from me even if I were to join ISIS or whatever! Why is someone less British if they were born here but their parents were not? I mean why stop there? What about grandparents? How about anyone who doesn’t have pure Celtic Briton DNA having the only right to being British? We can remove citizenship from all those people with Saxon, Viking and Norman DNA. She’s British. She’s our problem. She should be dealt with by our legal system like any other traitor. Her extenuating circumstances may be taken into consideration but then so too does her apparent lack of remorse etc. If not then we have no moral grounds to repatriate immigrants who commit crimes in the UK. " If Shamina Begum is allowed to be repatriated to the UK and keep her British citizenship despite being an active member of a terrorist organisation, the UK will lose all legal and moral basis to deport people like the immigrant men involved in the Rotherham grooming gang back to their countries of origin. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""She was made stateless using the fact that her parents were not born here, so the same thing could not be done for someone with British born parents. Different rules for different British people" Exactly! The difference between what used to be described as "British by birth" and "British other than by birth" I consider the former a privilege which can - and in this case has been - removed. I'm British "other than by birth" and that couldn't be taken away from me even if I were to join ISIS or whatever! Why is someone less British if they were born here but their parents were not? I mean why stop there? What about grandparents? How about anyone who doesn’t have pure Celtic Briton DNA having the only right to being British? We can remove citizenship from all those people with Saxon, Viking and Norman DNA. She’s British. She’s our problem. She should be dealt with by our legal system like any other traitor. Her extenuating circumstances may be taken into consideration but then so too does her apparent lack of remorse etc. If not then we have no moral grounds to repatriate immigrants who commit crimes in the UK. If Shamina Begum is allowed to be repatriated to the UK and keep her British citizenship despite being an active member of a terrorist organisation, the UK will lose all legal and moral basis to deport people like the immigrant men involved in the Rotherham grooming gang back to their countries of origin. " No it is as I have, ie the opposite way around. Begum was an immigrant in Syria. She committed crimes in Syria. She should be deported to her country of birth to face trial and punishment. If she is not repatriated to the country of her birth then the UK has no moral right to deport immigrants who committed crimes in the UK to the country of their birth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""She was made stateless using the fact that her parents were not born here, so the same thing could not be done for someone with British born parents. Different rules for different British people" Exactly! The difference between what used to be described as "British by birth" and "British other than by birth" I consider the former a privilege which can - and in this case has been - removed. I'm British "other than by birth" and that couldn't be taken away from me even if I were to join ISIS or whatever! Why is someone less British if they were born here but their parents were not? I mean why stop there? What about grandparents? How about anyone who doesn’t have pure Celtic Briton DNA having the only right to being British? We can remove citizenship from all those people with Saxon, Viking and Norman DNA. She’s British. She’s our problem. She should be dealt with by our legal system like any other traitor. Her extenuating circumstances may be taken into consideration but then so too does her apparent lack of remorse etc. If not then we have no moral grounds to repatriate immigrants who commit crimes in the UK. If Shamina Begum is allowed to be repatriated to the UK and keep her British citizenship despite being an active member of a terrorist organisation, the UK will lose all legal and moral basis to deport people like the immigrant men involved in the Rotherham grooming gang back to their countries of origin. " I dont follow that point. I'd almost see the opposite argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If not then we have no moral grounds to repatriate immigrants who commit crimes in the UK. If Shamina Begum is allowed to be repatriated to the UK and keep her British citizenship despite being an active member of a terrorist organisation, the UK will lose all legal and moral basis to deport people like the immigrant men involved in the Rotherham grooming gang back to their countries of origin. I dont follow that point. I'd almost see the opposite argument. " Im assuming that should be "not allowed" ? Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""She was made stateless using the fact that her parents were not born here, so the same thing could not be done for someone with British born parents. Different rules for different British people" Exactly! The difference between what used to be described as "British by birth" and "British other than by birth" I consider the former a privilege which can - and in this case has been - removed. I'm British "other than by birth" and that couldn't be taken away from me even if I were to join ISIS or whatever! Why is someone less British if they were born here but their parents were not? I mean why stop there? What about grandparents? How about anyone who doesn’t have pure Celtic Briton DNA having the only right to being British? We can remove citizenship from all those people with Saxon, Viking and Norman DNA. She’s British. She’s our problem. She should be dealt with by our legal system like any other traitor. Her extenuating circumstances may be taken into consideration but then so too does her apparent lack of remorse etc. If not then we have no moral grounds to repatriate immigrants who commit crimes in the UK. " It isn't being less British, it is having another country to go to. Most countries will do what the UK is doing and strip the citizenship and deport. When a person has only one country to live in, citizenship will not be taken away. I guess the first country to revoke the citizenship leaves the second country with the person to deal with. I'm unsure why she did not use her right to live in Bangladesh before that right expired at the age of 21. I would assume she would have had a more stable environment and life to build on than she does now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""She was made stateless using the fact that her parents were not born here, so the same thing could not be done for someone with British born parents. Different rules for different British people" Exactly! The difference between what used to be described as "British by birth" and "British other than by birth" I consider the former a privilege which can - and in this case has been - removed. I'm British "other than by birth" and that couldn't be taken away from me even if I were to join ISIS or whatever! Why is someone less British if they were born here but their parents were not? I mean why stop there? What about grandparents? How about anyone who doesn’t have pure Celtic Briton DNA having the only right to being British? We can remove citizenship from all those people with Saxon, Viking and Norman DNA. She’s British. She’s our problem. She should be dealt with by our legal system like any other traitor. Her extenuating circumstances may be taken into consideration but then so too does her apparent lack of remorse etc. If not then we have no moral grounds to repatriate immigrants who commit crimes in the UK. It isn't being less British, it is having another country to go to. Most countries will do what the UK is doing and strip the citizenship and deport. When a person has only one country to live in, citizenship will not be taken away. I guess the first country to revoke the citizenship leaves the second country with the person to deal with. I'm unsure why she did not use her right to live in Bangladesh before that right expired at the age of 21. I would assume she would have had a more stable environment and life to build on than she does now." she's 19 isn't she ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""She was made stateless using the fact that her parents were not born here, so the same thing could not be done for someone with British born parents. Different rules for different British people" Exactly! The difference between what used to be described as "British by birth" and "British other than by birth" I consider the former a privilege which can - and in this case has been - removed. I'm British "other than by birth" and that couldn't be taken away from me even if I were to join ISIS or whatever! Why is someone less British if they were born here but their parents were not? I mean why stop there? What about grandparents? How about anyone who doesn’t have pure Celtic Briton DNA having the only right to being British? We can remove citizenship from all those people with Saxon, Viking and Norman DNA. She’s British. She’s our problem. She should be dealt with by our legal system like any other traitor. Her extenuating circumstances may be taken into consideration but then so too does her apparent lack of remorse etc. If not then we have no moral grounds to repatriate immigrants who commit crimes in the UK. It isn't being less British, it is having another country to go to. Most countries will do what the UK is doing and strip the citizenship and deport. When a person has only one country to live in, citizenship will not be taken away. I guess the first country to revoke the citizenship leaves the second country with the person to deal with. I'm unsure why she did not use her right to live in Bangladesh before that right expired at the age of 21. I would assume she would have had a more stable environment and life to build on than she does now.she's 19 isn't she ? " 23 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""She was made stateless using the fact that her parents were not born here, so the same thing could not be done for someone with British born parents. Different rules for different British people" Exactly! The difference between what used to be described as "British by birth" and "British other than by birth" I consider the former a privilege which can - and in this case has been - removed. I'm British "other than by birth" and that couldn't be taken away from me even if I were to join ISIS or whatever! Why is someone less British if they were born here but their parents were not? I mean why stop there? What about grandparents? How about anyone who doesn’t have pure Celtic Briton DNA having the only right to being British? We can remove citizenship from all those people with Saxon, Viking and Norman DNA. She’s British. She’s our problem. She should be dealt with by our legal system like any other traitor. Her extenuating circumstances may be taken into consideration but then so too does her apparent lack of remorse etc. If not then we have no moral grounds to repatriate immigrants who commit crimes in the UK. It isn't being less British, it is having another country to go to. Most countries will do what the UK is doing and strip the citizenship and deport. When a person has only one country to live in, citizenship will not be taken away. I guess the first country to revoke the citizenship leaves the second country with the person to deal with. I'm unsure why she did not use her right to live in Bangladesh before that right expired at the age of 21. I would assume she would have had a more stable environment and life to build on than she does now.she's 19 isn't she ? 23" Looking back at the news articles, she was still saying isis were right at 21... 22 she seemed to change her mind | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""She was made stateless using the fact that her parents were not born here, so the same thing could not be done for someone with British born parents. Different rules for different British people" Exactly! The difference between what used to be described as "British by birth" and "British other than by birth" I consider the former a privilege which can - and in this case has been - removed. I'm British "other than by birth" and that couldn't be taken away from me even if I were to join ISIS or whatever! Why is someone less British if they were born here but their parents were not? I mean why stop there? What about grandparents? How about anyone who doesn’t have pure Celtic Briton DNA having the only right to being British? We can remove citizenship from all those people with Saxon, Viking and Norman DNA. She’s British. She’s our problem. She should be dealt with by our legal system like any other traitor. Her extenuating circumstances may be taken into consideration but then so too does her apparent lack of remorse etc. If not then we have no moral grounds to repatriate immigrants who commit crimes in the UK. It isn't being less British, it is having another country to go to. Most countries will do what the UK is doing and strip the citizenship and deport. When a person has only one country to live in, citizenship will not be taken away. I guess the first country to revoke the citizenship leaves the second country with the person to deal with. I'm unsure why she did not use her right to live in Bangladesh before that right expired at the age of 21. I would assume she would have had a more stable environment and life to build on than she does now." To quote Oursecretmishief from above... "Born in Britain, raised in Britain, educated in Britain and radicalised in Britain...But some think she's a problem for another country to solve." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
