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 |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? " She should never step foot on British soil ever again | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes because she’s British. " She should be in prison btw. But in Britain. | |||
(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 |
| |||
(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 |
"Yes because she’s British. She should be in prison btw. But in Britain. " Why should the British tax payer keep her ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes because she’s British. She should be in prison btw. But in Britain. Why should the British tax payer keep her ?" Because she’s British. Why can’t she return to the country she was born and raised in? | |||
(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 |
"Yes because she’s British. She should be in prison btw. But in Britain. " This ^ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No she decided Britain wasn't good enough for her when she left so she made her bed she should jolly well lay in it " You mean when when she was 15 years old? Interesting that she ‘decided’ that at 15. 🤔🤔🤔🤔 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"David Lammy stated she is not a British national." because the UK removed her citizenship. Something I find quite frankly frightening. | |||
(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 |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was against international law to strip her of her British citizenship in the first place as she wasn't a dual national. I did a masters degree in criminology and did my masters dissertation on the issue of what to do with returning British foreign fighters coming back from Syria/Iraq - It's a complex area and there is a lot of research on it... but if you take away the fact she was 15 and all of that argument... if you fully believe someone is a genuine threat to national security why would you want them out in the world remaining part of a terror organisation, possibly planning future attacks etc instead of back here, in a prison where they are monitored and therefore less of a threat? The arguments against bringing her back don't add up if your cry that she is a threat to national security. It's just logical! " I just don’t see how it was supported especially the argument that she should be the responsibility of Bangladesh! I also think she would be deemed a threat enough to be imprisoned but returning to the country of her birth where she was raised feels like the absolute minimum here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is she a British citizen by birth or naturalised? S" She was born here and raised here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No She is no longer a British Citizen and that was upheld again in February 2024. Needs to stay put" Fuck around & Find out! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was against international law to strip her of her British citizenship in the first place as she wasn't a dual national. I did a masters degree in criminology and did my masters dissertation on the issue of what to do with returning British foreign fighters coming back from Syria/Iraq - It's a complex area and there is a lot of research on it... but if you take away the fact she was 15 and all of that argument... if you fully believe someone is a genuine threat to national security why would you want them out in the world remaining part of a terror organisation, possibly planning future attacks etc instead of back here, in a prison where they are monitored and therefore less of a threat? The arguments against bringing her back don't add up if your cry that she is a threat to national security. It's just logical! " They add up fine when no British prison ever seems to make any criminal serve a full sentence. So she could be back here, let out silly early and still be able to plot or plan further attacks on the UK , like she could do from anywhere else in the world. So just keep her where she is and stop the UK having to pay out on her upkeep. She doesn't deserve to be here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These threads make ing out - and blocking bigots an absolute breeze. "My list has expanded | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is she a British citizen by birth or naturalised? S She was born here and raised here. " If she were naturalised, yes, strip her of citizenship and let her rot where she is. Being a born citizen, she shoukd be allowed to come back and serve time in prison with no possibility of "early release" because of good behaviour or humanitarian grounds. I have zero sympathy for this individual, but if the government can strip a born citizen's status like that, then it sets a very dangerous precedent which should worry everyone. It could theoretically be used against anyone the state might deem a "threat" or undesirable. S | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is she a British citizen by birth or naturalised? S She was born here and raised here. If she were naturalised, yes, strip her of citizenship and let her rot where she is. Being a born citizen, she shoukd be allowed to come back and serve time in prison with no possibility of "early release" because of good behaviour or humanitarian grounds. I have zero sympathy for this individual, but if the government can strip a born citizen's status like that, then it sets a very dangerous precedent which should worry everyone. It could theoretically be used against anyone the state might deem a "threat" or undesirable. S " I agree it’s a terrifying precedent. But the fact that you can’t make anyone stateless makes it so that this can really only happen to those that are eligible for citizenship elsewhere (through descent) for example. Begum had never been to Bangladesh so how can she be more their responsibility than ours? And if someone isn’t eligible through a descendent (recent one) is it that they can never have their citizenship removed? Utter rubbish. Funnily enough the US government don’t have the power to remove citizenship. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was against international law to strip her of her British citizenship in the first place as she wasn't a dual national. I did a masters degree in criminology and did my masters dissertation on the issue of what to do with returning British foreign fighters coming back from Syria/Iraq - It's a complex area and there is a lot of research on it... but if you take away the fact she was 15 and all of that argument... if you fully believe someone is a genuine threat to national security why would you want them out in the world remaining part of a terror organisation, possibly planning future attacks etc instead of back here, in a prison where they are monitored and therefore less of a threat? The arguments against bringing her back don't add up if your cry that she is a threat to national security. It's just logical! They add up fine when no British prison ever seems to make any criminal serve a full sentence. So she could be back here, let out silly early and still be able to plot or plan further attacks on the UK , like she could do from anywhere else in the world. So just keep her where she is and stop the UK having to pay out on her upkeep. She doesn't deserve to be here. " She was a 15 year old girl. Talking about deserving to be here is crazy. She’s British. Here is where she’s from. | |||
(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 |
"No because she messed up and she knows she messed up. Effectively she’s taking the piss" I could say more, but in a nutshell, this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No she decided Britain wasn't good enough for her when she left so she made her bed she should jolly well lay in it You mean when when she was 15 years old? Interesting that she ‘decided’ that at 15. 🤔🤔🤔🤔" Totally agree, if she had been a 15 year old white boy it would be different. People would say he was only a child. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No she decided Britain wasn't good enough for her when she left so she made her bed she should jolly well lay in it " She was a kid if I recall correctly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was against international law to strip her of her British citizenship in the first place as she wasn't a dual national. I did a masters degree in criminology and did my masters dissertation on the issue of what to do with returning British foreign fighters coming back from Syria/Iraq - It's a complex area and there is a lot of research on it... but if you take away the fact she was 15 and all of that argument... if you fully believe someone is a genuine threat to national security why would you want them out in the world remaining part of a terror organisation, possibly planning future attacks etc instead of back here, in a prison where they are monitored and therefore less of a threat? The arguments against bringing her back don't add up if your cry that she is a threat to national security. It's just logical! " I thought that was their reasoning, having dual nationalities (Bangladeshi). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wasn’t she gr**med as a kid and recruited by an undercover Canadian spy ? Then illegally married at 15. I’m sure if she was white she would be seen as a victim of child abuse and trafficking & be back home by now " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People are happy to throw our legal system and judges under the bus, on the basis of what they hypothetically think would happen should the person have a different colour skin, gender etc, etc. Focus in my opinion should remain on the legalities and evidence rather than hypothetical bias, this would keep responses grounded in fact, not assumptions. Appeals and due diligence have been applied. " Because the law is just  | |||
(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 |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well these threads always seem to show people’s true colours. She was groomed as a child - if the girls of Rotherham grooming gangs were victims, but you don’t see her as a victim then that’s reflection on you. They were all girls of the same age. Shes a home grown terrorist She should back and face justice here. " Couldn't have said it better myself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well these threads always seem to show people’s true colours. She was groomed as a child - if the girls of Rotherham grooming gangs were victims, but you don’t see her as a victim then that’s reflection on you. They were all girls of the same age. Shes a home grown terrorist She should back and face justice here. Couldn't have said it better myself." The sentiment is laudable, but remember there's a cost of imprisonment, health, legal and security monitoring. Probably amounting to £ millions over her lifetime. Somebody has to pay taxes for all that at a time when we can barely care for honest, loyal citizens. | |||
(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 |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? " Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take " Do you really not see the difference between a girl who was groomed then subsequently r*ped and tortured, and a girl who was groomed and then joined an Islamic terrorist group and contributed willingly to the atrocities they carried out? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Do you really not see the difference between a girl who was groomed then subsequently r*ped and tortured, and a girl who was groomed and then joined an Islamic terrorist group and contributed willingly to the atrocities they carried out?" If you acknowledge that she was groomed at 15 then nothing was ‘willingly’ done. She was a victim of abuse. At 15 she didn’t go off and consent to get married. In our country (where she was born and raised) she wouldn’t be able to legally consent to any of that. So none of it was done ‘willingly’. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wasn’t she gr**med as a kid and recruited by an undercover Canadian spy ? Then illegally married at 15. I’m sure if she was white she would be seen as a victim of child abuse and trafficking & be back home by now " Not sure travelling by choice could be construed as trafficking though, especially as she wasn't in the company of traffickers during the journey. Might make coercion difficult to define in a court. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take " Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The sentiment is laudable, but remember there's a cost of imprisonment, health, legal and security monitoring. Probably amounting to £ millions over her lifetime. Somebody has to pay taxes for all that at a time when we can barely care for honest, loyal citizens." Whilst there may be cost for imprisonment and other factors needed to pay and support an inmate, the flip side is employment for the infrastructure needed to make that happen. I have known folks in the prison service, and their careers have paid for homes, and supported their lives. If people didn't do bad things, those careers would cease to exist. As would the prisons. As would the companies that build them. As would the whole supply chain behind that. . You might save a few pence in the pound, but you've reduced the earning potential (nay existence) of dozens, if not hundreds of others. . I suppose a parallel might be veganism. If everyone gave up meat, the livestock farming industry would be superflous. I suppose they can grow plants instead. But prison service folks can't find prison service employment if prisons don't exist. . The cost of her imprisonment is a cost I accept to maintain my own security and safety, and to protect others. Sure, there are cheaper alternatives, but whereas she is a terrorist because of ideology, I don't wish to become one by the ideology of supporting state-sponsored execution either. . If she swerved on her own humanity that's her choice. I'm not swerving on mine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I get the groomed issue , a lot of young girls have been groomed , no one wants to hear there plight , stay where she is I suppose we offer her discount voucher for Go outdoors and she could get a decent tent " | |||
(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 |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Do you really not see the difference between a girl who was groomed then subsequently r*ped and tortured, and a girl who was groomed and then joined an Islamic terrorist group and contributed willingly to the atrocities they carried out?" Do you not see that the grooming is key in both cases? The grooming is what makes the perp's behaviour/actions seem normal. IE the girls consequential behaviour is not "wrong". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs." Grooming is psychological. The girls would not know it was happening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs." I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. Grooming is psychological. The girls would not know it was happening." In that case she's not responsible for any of her actions, that's your argument right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. Grooming is psychological. The girls would not know it was happening. In that case she's not responsible for any of her actions, that's your argument right?" Sadly she is accountable for her actions, likewise a girl killing her rapist. But there are mitigating circumstances. What you're not going to do is have me as judge and executioner in her case or of any other victim. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. Grooming is psychological. The girls would not know it was happening. In that case she's not responsible for any of her actions, that's your argument right? Sadly she is accountable for her actions, likewise a girl killing her rapist. But there are mitigating circumstances. What you're not going to do is have me as judge and executioner in her case or of any other victim. " Victim? Is that a piss take? I'll happily kick the stool out from uner her feet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. Grooming is psychological. The girls would not know it was happening. In that case she's not responsible for any of her actions, that's your argument right? Sadly she is accountable for her actions, likewise a girl killing her rapist. But there are mitigating circumstances. What you're not going to do is have me as judge and executioner in her case or of any other victim. Victim? Is that a piss take? I'll happily kick the stool out from uner her feet." ewww. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't be surprised if Farage packs his bags and heads to the US after Trump is sworn in I'm beginning to think he is trying to ruin any popularity that reform has gained " Well he’s an elected MP so I hope not. Surely he’d lose his job | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness." you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex?????? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. Grooming is psychological. The girls would not know it was happening. In that case she's not responsible for any of her actions, that's your argument right? Sadly she is accountable for her actions, likewise a girl killing her rapist. But there are mitigating circumstances. What you're not going to do is have me as judge and executioner in her case or of any other victim. " Except I'm not aware that any of the many thousands of girls r@ped and tortured by grooming gangs did kill anyone. They certainly didn't join terrorist groups to carry our genocide on the Yazidi population. IS brides such as Begum were instrumental in this genocide, not just passive observers. If IS had been victorious in Syria do you seriously think she would have any regrets ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex??????" We clearly have different opinions on this matter but there's no need to call people 'disgusting'. In the politics section we have honest disagreements, this isn't the lounge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from the comments from Farage, has there been any more developments in her case to return to the UK. Last I knew (ages ago) she had been stripped of her citizenship so no longer considered British. I think she may have appealed this decision through various means but as far as I know she has not been successful in overturning the decision. Agree or disagree with stripping her citizenship, until it is overturned she is not British. " I believe Farage has denied those comments or been misquoted but you're right, no new developments asaik. I believe her parents now live in Bangladesh so no reason she can't join them and live her life there, hopefully in peace. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex??????" There's a great deal of nastiness in here. I Hope to God they aren't parents. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex?????? We clearly have different opinions on this matter but there's no need to call people 'disgusting'. In the politics section we have honest disagreements, this isn't the lounge." There have been disgusting comments, like kick the stool beneath her... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex?????? We clearly have different opinions on this matter but there's no need to call people 'disgusting'. In the politics section we have honest disagreements, this isn't the lounge. There have been disgusting comments, like kick the stool beneath her..." The person who made that comment was not the one being called 'so disgusting'. No debate is progressed by personal abuse, more inclusivity and diversity please.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex?????? There's a great deal of nastiness in here. I Hope to God they aren't parents." Why on earth are you commenting on people's status or worth as parents? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah guys, don't make nasty comments about terrorists, you'll hurt their feelings "That does seem to be the case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life." She didn't go cos she was 15, she went, I believe, cos she was groomed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex?????? There's a great deal of nastiness in here. I Hope to God they aren't parents. Why on earth are you commenting on people's status or worth as parents? " Because I would hope parents are more empathetic. "There for the grace of God go i" " there for the grace of God go our children". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex?????? There's a great deal of nastiness in here. I Hope to God they aren't parents. Why on earth are you commenting on people's status or worth as parents? Because I would hope parents are more empathetic. "There for the grace of God go i" " there for the grace of God go our children". " I can empathise with parents whose children are groomed through affection, gifts, attention and they like by guys who then sensually assault them. These girls don't consider what their attackers are doing initially as wrong. These vulnerable girls are having an emotional need met by these guys and they prey on these girls using that. The girls cannot see the right or wrong in the behaviour and that's how they are hooked at first. However it's a bit different when a 15 year old girl is seduced by a violent religious ideology, involving, t@rture, murder, beheading and the like. What emotional need, that's been missing from this girl, did she have fulfilled by joining such a group? At 15 years old she knows right from wrong, that's why 10 year old are considered criminally responsible. So I think the notion of 'grooming' is very different in these circumstances. It's not universally the same. Grooming gangs prey on a lack of love and affection found in certain vulnerable girls. They don't consider the right or wrong in it, they just crave affection, need to be wanted, to be told they are special. ISIS attract young people who don't feel they are part of society, that they've been let down, disenfranchised and show them a different way of living. They offer a way to get back at the society they are currently living in and show how that will be achieved, via, t#rture, murder, beheading etc, until they are the majority society, until they have cured all of societies ills. People who are seduced by this ideology know this behaviour is wrong but accept it to achieve acceptance in what they consider to be a better way of living and it allows them to hit back at a society that they believe has mistreated them. So not all grooming is the same and it shouldn't be treated the same. She knew it was wrong but still went ahead with it. At 15 years old she is responsible for her own decisions. Think that's a huge difference from those girls, suffering at the hands of predatory grooming gangs, who are looking for live and affection not realising any of it was wrong until it was too late, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex??????" You are being disingenuous here. This was political grooming, and required the targets to have sympathies with the goals and methods of terrorists, and enough awareness to get travel documents. Blaming grooming for their nefarious activities is just a cop-out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. She didn't go cos she was 15, she went, I believe, cos she was groomed." So how about the others then? Like Jahidi John for example - notorious ISIS beheader and a Brit. Was this hapless chap groomed and worthy of absolution? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. She didn't go cos she was 15, she went, I believe, cos she was groomed. So how about the others then? Like Jahidi John for example - notorious ISIS beheader and a Brit. Was this hapless chap groomed and worthy of absolution?" A drone did for Emwazi, his ending was a ‘quick win’ for all mankind, he’d tried to flee via Saudi Arabia a few times and was gearing up politically for a return to a UK jail | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life." Societal changes aside the law is still the law in relation to the ages set therein for such things as liability etc.. Yes there's been instances like the Bulger case.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can empathise with parents whose children are groomed through affection, gifts, attention and they like by guys who then sensually assault them. These girls don't consider what their attackers are doing initially as wrong. These vulnerable girls are having an emotional need met by these guys and they prey on these girls using that. The girls cannot see the right or wrong in the behaviour and that's how they are hooked at first. However it's a bit different when a 15 year old girl is seduced by a violent religious ideology, involving, t@rture, murder, beheading and the like. What emotional need, that's been missing from this girl, did she have fulfilled by joining such a group? At 15 years old she knows right from wrong, that's why 10 year old are considered criminally responsible. So I think the notion of 'grooming' is very different in these circumstances. It's not universally the same. Grooming gangs prey on a lack of love and affection found in certain vulnerable girls. They don't consider the right or wrong in it, they just crave affection, need to be wanted, to be told they are special. ISIS attract young people who don't feel they are part of society, that they've been let down, disenfranchised and show them a different way of living. They offer a way to get back at the society they are currently living in and show how that will be achieved, via, t#rture, murder, beheading etc, until they are the majority society, until they have cured all of societies ills. People who are seduced by this ideology know this behaviour is wrong but accept it to achieve acceptance in what they consider to be a better way of living and it allows them to hit back at a society that they believe has mistreated them. So not all grooming is the same and it shouldn't be treated the same. She knew it was wrong but still went ahead with it. At 15 years old she is responsible for her own decisions. Think that's a huge difference from those girls, suffering at the hands of predatory grooming gangs, who are looking for live and affection not realising any of it was wrong until it was too late, Mrs x" Valid points..
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. Societal changes aside the law is still the law in relation to the ages set therein for such things as liability etc.. Yes there's been instances like the Bulger case.." Criminal age of responsibility is 10 in UK. Regardless of whether she could marry, smoke, drink at 15 she was responsible for her crimes. However as others have said, she didn't commit these in the UK so it's questionable whether she could ever be held accountable here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. Societal changes aside the law is still the law in relation to the ages set therein for such things as liability etc.. Yes there's been instances like the Bulger case.. Criminal age of responsibility is 10 in UK. Regardless of whether she could marry, smoke, drink at 15 she was responsible for her crimes. However as others have said, she didn't commit these in the UK so it's questionable whether she could ever be held accountable here." Bring here back, she'll get legal aid off the state, likely get acquitted on a technicality, write a book, make TV appearances and get mega rich. Is that justice? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Clearly a very emotive issue. But stripping someone of their citizenship sets a very dangerous precedent. She may have been groomed through that word with a very loaded meaning so manipulated and influenced would probably be a better description. I think that she should be allowed back to the UK. Where she can be properly monitored and de-programmed. Proper monitoring cannot be really effectively done remotely. By denying her return can act as a recruiting call to other disenfranchised young people as online activists will twist the truth to suit their own agenda. This is all counterintuitive to the knee jerk “lock em up and throw away the keys” brigade who there are good many here who can’t think beyond the tabloid headlines. I really don’t think the politicians who make these decisions have a real grasp of the psychology of manipulation, grooming and propaganda brainwashing of impressionable people regardless of their age. This is all about the appearance of being tough as a vote winner and appealing to that section of society who lap up that stance. " must be a majority of society then if politicians use the tough stance to win them viotes because if people who thought that way goverments wouldnt try to win those votes so again the majority gets what they want thats how the world wirks majority wins everytime | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. She didn't go cos she was 15, she went, I believe, cos she was groomed." radicalised not groomed stop trying to put her into the same group as victims of grooming gangs, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. She didn't go cos she was 15, she went, I believe, cos she was groomed.radicalised not groomed stop trying to put her into the same group as victims of grooming gangs, " I think the intention of those who make that comparison is clear - they want to suggest the victims of the grooming gangs have some responsibility for their situation which is exactly the attitude taken by the police and social services when those terrible crimes were first discovered. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"must be a majority of society then if politicians use the tough stance to win them viotes because if people who thought that way goverments wouldnt try to win those votes so again the majority gets what they want thats how the world wirks majority wins everytime" . “A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good, just because it's accepted by a majority” is a quote attributed to Booker T. Washington | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"must be a majority of society then if politicians use the tough stance to win them viotes because if people who thought that way goverments wouldnt try to win those votes so again the majority gets what they want thats how the world wirks majority wins everytime . “A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good, just because it's accepted by a majority” is a quote attributed to Booker T. Washington" I loved his record 'Green Onions' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable." If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? " No. Let it rot in the dust. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable.If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x" I thought the same ! There have been some really interesting and important points made on this thread, lots of food for thought and only one abusive post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. She didn't go cos she was 15, she went, I believe, cos she was groomed.radicalised not groomed stop trying to put her into the same group as victims of grooming gangs, I think the intention of those who make that comparison is clear - they want to suggest the victims of the grooming gangs have some responsibility for their situation which is exactly the attitude taken by the police and social services when those terrible crimes were first discovered. " What you think others think is immaterial. The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc (that's the foot in the door/initial stages), they're subject to threats to themselves and to others they love. I've already stated the perps should be strung up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable.If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x" Absolutely, and I should have have elaborated that I'm not interested in others stating their opinion on the word grooming. Although clearly implied. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable.If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x Absolutely, and I should have have elaborated that I'm not interested in others stating their opinion on the word grooming. Although clearly implied." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable.If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x I thought the same ! There have been some really interesting and important points made on this thread, lots of food for thought and only one abusive post." That poster who called out a post as being disgusting is not abusive. The bar in this forum is so very low. As an ex moderator (not here), I would warn people they could slam posts but not posters. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable.If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x I thought the same ! There have been some really interesting and important points made on this thread, lots of food for thought and only one abusive post. That poster who called out a post as being disgusting is not abusive. The bar in this forum is so very low. As an ex moderator (not here), I would warn people they could slam posts but not posters." I strongly disagree, it was clear personal abuse. I don't usually report posts as I believe in free speech but I will call abuse out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? No. Let it rot in the dust." Not sure what I think should happen to her, it's very complicated. Just think that there is a massive difference in her thought processes compared to those girls who were groomed by the sex gangs. By putting her into the same 'class' as these girls seems to be absolving her from the horrendous truths she knew prior to making any decision. It's as if she was an 'empty vessel' before any contact with ISIS and their followers, unaware of what they were about or what they did. But she didn't live in a vacumn, she knew right from wrong and could have used this knowledge to stop herself from choosing this path. I think that there's a massive difference in grooming and radicalisation. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable.If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x Absolutely, and I should have have elaborated that I'm not interested in others stating their opinion on the word grooming. Although clearly implied." Unfortunately it's a public forum and you cannot dictate the content of a discussion, no matter how much you'd like to. As for implying something, maybe you'd be better off stating something implicitly because as much as you think it was clearly implied, maybe some users were unable to establish this from what you posted or maybe it just wasn't clearly implied enough, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. She didn't go cos she was 15, she went, I believe, cos she was groomed.radicalised not groomed stop trying to put her into the same group as victims of grooming gangs, I think the intention of those who make that comparison is clear - they want to suggest the victims of the grooming gangs have some responsibility for their situation which is exactly the attitude taken by the police and social services when those terrible crimes were first discovered. What you think others think is immaterial. The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc (that's the foot in the door/initial stages), they're subject to threats to themselves and to others they love. I've already stated the perps should be strung up." Just read this and I think you are being disingenuous. By saying what you are about 'The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc (that's the foot in the door/initial stages), they're subject to threats to themselves and to others they love.' seems to be an attempt to say I don't have compassion or sympathy for the victim of grooming. That I'm unaware of the impact to these poor girls or that I'm oblivious to the tactics used by these men. All of which I'm aware of and condemn wholeheartedly. My post is just about the initial thought processes involved in grooming as opposed to that of radicalisation. Those girls that were groomed were manipulated by men, who knew they were vulnerable, who saw girls who were looking for affection, love call it what you will. They saw nothing wrong in this and were seduced by this initially. The girl who was radicalised, knew about ISIS and how they operated. She knew all the stuff like t@rture, beheading, murder and the like was wrong. She could have just stopped right at the beginning of this process because of that but didn't. That's the difference, it was a conscious choice for her before any real radicalisation had started, she could have just said 'No, this is wrong' but she didn't, she chose this path. That's the difference between these two cases. Please don't use me in your response to other posts on here, do me the decency of posting directly to me, if you find something I've said as confusing or wrong and I'll discuss this with you. I'd expect more from an ex mod, I might never have seen what you'd written and not had a chance to reply. I think you are a balanced poster, with some great points normally but think on this occasion you are using what I've said, even though I never said it, in an underhanded way and it's quite upsetting. So to make it crystal clear, I'm not downplaying the effect or consequences of grooming or radicalisation. Both are horrendous for the victims. I've not even stated what I think about what should happen to this girl as I don't know, it's very complicated and I've already posted this. I'm just saying that in this case, due to the huge media coverage about ISIS and their aims and methods, she knew what they did was wrong before any contact with them and she could have said no to them at this point but she chose to interact with them instead. That, for me, is the biggest distinction in these cases. Ok? If you disagree we can discuss it further but please don't stick my name in a random post, I'm not an ex mod and I know that's just wrong. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If she was to be given back her citizenship and returned to the UK what crime would she be facing and likely sentence? I believe it was illegal to leave the UK for the specific purpose of joining Isis at the time, which she clearly did. Is that the only offence the UK could prosecute her for?" I believe so. 🤷♂️ But how many returnees have actually been prosecuted ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex?????? We clearly have different opinions on this matter but there's no need to call people 'disgusting'. In the politics section we have honest disagreements, this isn't the lounge." I asked you to not be so disgusting. The implication in your post was disgusting to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The way I see it she is a British Citizen and should be allowed back into the country.When she lands in the UK she should be arrested at the airport and the police should question her about everything that has happened.After that if there is enough evidence of a crime ( which I personally think there is ) there should be a trial.At the trial it is for a jury to decide if guilty or innocent and the judge to either pass sentence or release her." Evidence was presented that clearly showed her compliance in acts significant enough to remove her citizenship. Bangladesh wouldn't take her either for a couple of reasons, one of them because they consider her to be a security threat with her connections to ISIS and the potential for public anger. Bad decisions and evidence of crimes so awful they lead to removal of citizenship, should not be taken lightly. I hope that message resonates with the next terrorist who thinks of doing similar. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable.If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x Absolutely, and I should have have elaborated that I'm not interested in others stating their opinion on the word grooming. Although clearly implied.Unfortunately it's a public forum and you cannot dictate the content of a discussion, no matter how much you'd like to. As for implying something, maybe you'd be better off stating something implicitly because as much as you think it was clearly implied, maybe some users were unable to establish this from what you posted or maybe it just wasn't clearly implied enough, Mrs x" Ha! Saying I'm not interested does not dictate what others can post  .
Oh I forget that some people MIGHT have the reading ability of a five year old so I should adjust my style of composition. Pfffft.
That particular sentence was clear, however, I totally get (as I am guilty) people may scan read and not immediately get the fullest sense. So one elucidates.
Breakfast time!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. She didn't go cos she was 15, she went, I believe, cos she was groomed.radicalised not groomed stop trying to put her into the same group as victims of grooming gangs, I think the intention of those who make that comparison is clear - they want to suggest the victims of the grooming gangs have some responsibility for their situation which is exactly the attitude taken by the police and social services when those terrible crimes were first discovered. What you think others think is immaterial. The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc (that's the foot in the door/initial stages), they're subject to threats to themselves and to others they love. I've already stated the perps should be strung up.Just read this and I think you are being disingenuous. By saying what you are about 'The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc (that's the foot in the door/initial stages), they're subject to threats to themselves and to others they love.' seems to be an attempt to say I don't have compassion or sympathy for the victim of grooming. That I'm unaware of the impact to these poor girls or that I'm oblivious to the tactics used by these men. All of which I'm aware of and condemn wholeheartedly. My post is just about the initial thought processes involved in grooming as opposed to that of radicalisation. Those girls that were groomed were manipulated by men, who knew they were vulnerable, who saw girls who were looking for affection, love call it what you will. They saw nothing wrong in this and were seduced by this initially. The girl who was radicalised, knew about ISIS and how they operated. She knew all the stuff like t@rture, beheading, murder and the like was wrong. She could have just stopped right at the beginning of this process because of that but didn't. That's the difference, it was a conscious choice for her before any real radicalisation had started, she could have just said 'No, this is wrong' but she didn't, she chose this path. That's the difference between these two cases. Please don't use me in your response to other posts on here, do me the decency of posting directly to me, if you find something I've said as confusing or wrong and I'll discuss this with you. I'd expect more from an ex mod, I might never have seen what you'd written and not had a chance to reply. I think you are a balanced poster, with some great points normally but think on this occasion you are using what I've said, even though I never said it, in an underhanded way and it's quite upsetting. So to make it crystal clear, I'm not downplaying the effect or consequences of grooming or radicalisation. Both are horrendous for the victims. I've not even stated what I think about what should happen to this girl as I don't know, it's very complicated and I've already posted this. I'm just saying that in this case, due to the huge media coverage about ISIS and their aims and methods, she knew what they did was wrong before any contact with them and she could have said no to them at this point but she chose to interact with them instead. That, for me, is the biggest distinction in these cases. Ok? If you disagree we can discuss it further but please don't stick my name in a random post, I'm not an ex mod and I know that's just wrong. Mrs x" Considering we're on the same page about the initial stages of grooming, I don't know how my post can upset you. That is indeed puzzling. And once a post is on the thread, ownership is lost, so please don't tell me I cannot quote it on the same thread.  . If I was quoting from a different thread then (as per a rule here) that is not allowed and you'd be right to condemn my action.
I have seen far too much in this thread people stating the intentions of others rather than asking. It's blatant inference that can be wrong.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable.If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x I thought the same ! There have been some really interesting and important points made on this thread, lots of food for thought and only one abusive post. That poster who called out a post as being disgusting is not abusive. The bar in this forum is so very low. As an ex moderator (not here), I would warn people they could slam posts but not posters." Oh the irony, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable.If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x I thought the same ! There have been some really interesting and important points made on this thread, lots of food for thought and only one abusive post. That poster who called out a post as being disgusting is not abusive. The bar in this forum is so very low. As an ex moderator (not here), I would warn people they could slam posts but not posters. Oh the irony, Mrs x" Some people cannot tell the difference, shame. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex?????? We clearly have different opinions on this matter but there's no need to call people 'disgusting'. In the politics section we have honest disagreements, this isn't the lounge. I asked you to not be so disgusting. The implication in your post was disgusting to me. "You're replying to the wrong person. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable.If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x I thought the same ! There have been some really interesting and important points made on this thread, lots of food for thought and only one abusive post. That poster who called out a post as being disgusting is not abusive. The bar in this forum is so very low. As an ex moderator (not here), I would warn people they could slam posts but not posters. Oh the irony, Mrs x Some people cannot tell the difference, shame." Not want to address what I posted before, no? Guess it's a game of limbo then, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've posted what the Met state about grooming so I'm not interested in others' opinions. I've also stated she's accountable.If you are not interested in others opinions, why are you posting yours, isn't the purpose of a forum to stimulate open discussion? Mrs x I thought the same ! There have been some really interesting and important points made on this thread, lots of food for thought and only one abusive post. That poster who called out a post as being disgusting is not abusive. The bar in this forum is so very low. As an ex moderator (not here), I would warn people they could slam posts but not posters. Oh the irony, Mrs x Some people cannot tell the difference, shame.Not want to address what I posted before, no? Guess it's a game of limbo then, Mrs x" Scroll | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What I will add is that you can have empathy for the vulnerable girl and condemnation for whatever abuse she has inflicted on others. Take Rose West - she did monstrous things but the girl was a victim of her father, other men and Fred. You can grieve for the child and condemn the adult. In fact becoming a monster very likely saved her life at the hands of Fred." Speculative psychology and outcomes to excuse criminal behaviour? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What I will add is that you can have empathy for the vulnerable girl and condemnation for whatever abuse she has inflicted on others. Take Rose West - she did monstrous things but the girl was a victim of her father, other men and Fred. You can grieve for the child and condemn the adult. In fact becoming a monster very likely saved her life at the hands of Fred. Speculative psychology and outcomes to excuse criminal behaviour? " Ffs, really? You're asking if I excuse her abusing her children and being a party to multiple murders? I know the devastating effects of abuse. We don't all turn into murderers. I separated the child from the adult! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"must be a majority of society then if politicians use the tough stance to win them viotes because if people who thought that way goverments wouldnt try to win those votes so again the majority gets what they want thats how the world wirks majority wins everytime . “A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good, just because it's accepted by a majority” is a quote attributed to Booker T. Washington" if its making the majority happy thats what politicians will do and say as they want to win, you can quote who ever you want, making the majority happy is how you win elections i meen they could go the other way and make the minority of people happy but there less likley to win an election doing that, if you think politicians have the general publics best intrests at heart i have some magic beans to sell you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What I will add is that you can have empathy for the vulnerable girl and condemnation for whatever abuse she has inflicted on others. Take Rose West - she did monstrous things but the girl was a victim of her father, other men and Fred. You can grieve for the child and condemn the adult. In fact becoming a monster very likely saved her life at the hands of Fred. Speculative psychology and outcomes to excuse criminal behaviour? Ffs, really? You're asking if I excuse her abusing her children and being a party to multiple murders? I know the devastating effects of abuse. We don't all turn into murderers. I separated the child from the adult!" That is how I read it, hence the question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex?????? We clearly have different opinions on this matter but there's no need to call people 'disgusting'. In the politics section we have honest disagreements, this isn't the lounge. I asked you to not be so disgusting. The implication in your post was disgusting to me.
You're replying to the wrong person. "I think I was the poster attracting the disgust, which in the circumstance I take as backhand compliment. No time for terrorist apologists tbh. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Farage says she should be allowed back in the country.... Do you agree? Well if you are going to go after the subject of grooming then you could absolutely say she is a victim of grooming herself Or are we just picking and choosing the offense we take Except she wasn't 'groomed' and has never claimed she was. The use of this word in this context is a pretty appalling attempt to link a self confessed supporter of r@pe and torture such as SB with the actual victims of Pakistani heritage grooming gangs. I agree, it devalues the true meaning of 'grooming' and frankly makes it a potential excuse for any wrongdoing however bad. "Oh he/she was groomed, otherwise an angel". More bonkers wokeness. you’re not serious?! It’s not woke to acknowledge that someone that isn’t old enough to vote or consent to sex was groomed into travelling abroad and marrying a stranger. Hello?!?!?! Don’t be so disgusting. Do you think 15 year olds can consent to go off and marry older men and join political terrorist groups when they can’t legally love alone, vote or have consensual sex?????? We clearly have different opinions on this matter but there's no need to call people 'disgusting'. In the politics section we have honest disagreements, this isn't the lounge. I asked you to not be so disgusting. The implication in your post was disgusting to me.
You're replying to the wrong person.
I think I was the poster attracting the disgust, which in the circumstance I take as backhand compliment. No time for terrorist apologists tbh."Agreed. One really has to question the mental state of someone so keen to defend and excuse a known terrorist. Again, a click of the green arrow is most enlightening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. She didn't go cos she was 15, she went, I believe, cos she was groomed.radicalised not groomed stop trying to put her into the same group as victims of grooming gangs, I think the intention of those who make that comparison is clear - they want to suggest the victims of the grooming gangs have some responsibility for their situation which is exactly the attitude taken by the police and social services when those terrible crimes were first discovered. What you think others think is immaterial. The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc (that's the foot in the door/initial stages), they're subject to threats to themselves and to others they love. I've already stated the perps should be strung up.Just read this and I think you are being disingenuous. By saying what you are about 'The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc (that's the foot in the door/initial stages), they're subject to threats to themselves and to others they love.' seems to be an attempt to say I don't have compassion or sympathy for the victim of grooming. That I'm unaware of the impact to these poor girls or that I'm oblivious to the tactics used by these men. All of which I'm aware of and condemn wholeheartedly. My post is just about the initial thought processes involved in grooming as opposed to that of radicalisation. Those girls that were groomed were manipulated by men, who knew they were vulnerable, who saw girls who were looking for affection, love call it what you will. They saw nothing wrong in this and were seduced by this initially. The girl who was radicalised, knew about ISIS and how they operated. She knew all the stuff like t@rture, beheading, murder and the like was wrong. She could have just stopped right at the beginning of this process because of that but didn't. That's the difference, it was a conscious choice for her before any real radicalisation had started, she could have just said 'No, this is wrong' but she didn't, she chose this path. That's the difference between these two cases. Please don't use me in your response to other posts on here, do me the decency of posting directly to me, if you find something I've said as confusing or wrong and I'll discuss this with you. I'd expect more from an ex mod, I might never have seen what you'd written and not had a chance to reply. I think you are a balanced poster, with some great points normally but think on this occasion you are using what I've said, even though I never said it, in an underhanded way and it's quite upsetting. So to make it crystal clear, I'm not downplaying the effect or consequences of grooming or radicalisation. Both are horrendous for the victims. I've not even stated what I think about what should happen to this girl as I don't know, it's very complicated and I've already posted this. I'm just saying that in this case, due to the huge media coverage about ISIS and their aims and methods, she knew what they did was wrong before any contact with them and she could have said no to them at this point but she chose to interact with them instead. That, for me, is the biggest distinction in these cases. Ok? If you disagree we can discuss it further but please don't stick my name in a random post, I'm not an ex mod and I know that's just wrong. Mrs x Considering we're on the same page about the initial stages of grooming, I don't know how my post can upset you. That is indeed puzzling. And once a post is on the thread, ownership is lost, so please don't tell me I cannot quote it on the same thread. . If I was quoting from a different thread then (as per a rule here) that is not allowed and you'd be right to condemn my action.
I have seen far too much in this thread people stating the intentions of others rather than asking. It's blatant inference that can be wrong.
"Whats puzzling is that you claim we are on the same page as regards the initial stages of grooning but have posted that... 'The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc', yet I never said that these girls would just be subject to replacement affection. I didn't even imply that. You are simply putting words into my mouth to support your argument. Of course you can quote others on the same thread but by making an inference on here and stating me as the poster of something I clearly did not say, in someone else's thread could open me up to potential abuse from others who read what you post and agree with your inference. Even though I never said anything about this at the time. As someone who has been on the end of abusive DMs in the past, from people who have read what others have said about certain posts of mine I just think it's common decency to discuss any issues with that poster, giving them the right to respond. That's why I'm upset about this, especially from some who states you can slam the post not the poster. As for a right to reply, that's what I've done to you. I could have posted to all unsundry about how upset this made me feel, but I didn't, I gave you the common decency to address what you said and how it makes me feel. You could have read that and reacted a variety of ways, as is your want. You chose to be an arbiter of outrage and instead of just saying sorry for making me feel that you double down saying you find it puzzling how I could be upset, as if you are the only one capable of knowing what's upsetting and whats not. You could have just said sorry, it was my intention etc but you didn't. You could even have pointed out why you thought what you did but again you didn't. For someone posting about having empathy in this situation, you seem like you're in short supply of it. But hey ho, crack on. And just for information you can quote from other threads if its on the same, or similar subject, you just cant mention the poster. A mod clarified that on a thread we're just that thing happened. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. She didn't go cos she was 15, she went, I believe, cos she was groomed.radicalised not groomed stop trying to put her into the same group as victims of grooming gangs, I think the intention of those who make that comparison is clear - they want to suggest the victims of the grooming gangs have some responsibility for their situation which is exactly the attitude taken by the police and social services when those terrible crimes were first discovered. What you think others think is immaterial. The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc (that's the foot in the door/initial stages), they're subject to threats to themselves and to others they love. I've already stated the perps should be strung up.Just read this and I think you are being disingenuous. By saying what you are about 'The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc (that's the foot in the door/initial stages), they're subject to threats to themselves and to others they love.' seems to be an attempt to say I don't have compassion or sympathy for the victim of grooming. That I'm unaware of the impact to these poor girls or that I'm oblivious to the tactics used by these men. All of which I'm aware of and condemn wholeheartedly. My post is just about the initial thought processes involved in grooming as opposed to that of radicalisation. Those girls that were groomed were manipulated by men, who knew they were vulnerable, who saw girls who were looking for affection, love call it what you will. They saw nothing wrong in this and were seduced by this initially. The girl who was radicalised, knew about ISIS and how they operated. She knew all the stuff like t@rture, beheading, murder and the like was wrong. She could have just stopped right at the beginning of this process because of that but didn't. That's the difference, it was a conscious choice for her before any real radicalisation had started, she could have just said 'No, this is wrong' but she didn't, she chose this path. That's the difference between these two cases. Please don't use me in your response to other posts on here, do me the decency of posting directly to me, if you find something I've said as confusing or wrong and I'll discuss this with you. I'd expect more from an ex mod, I might never have seen what you'd written and not had a chance to reply. I think you are a balanced poster, with some great points normally but think on this occasion you are using what I've said, even though I never said it, in an underhanded way and it's quite upsetting. So to make it crystal clear, I'm not downplaying the effect or consequences of grooming or radicalisation. Both are horrendous for the victims. I've not even stated what I think about what should happen to this girl as I don't know, it's very complicated and I've already posted this. I'm just saying that in this case, due to the huge media coverage about ISIS and their aims and methods, she knew what they did was wrong before any contact with them and she could have said no to them at this point but she chose to interact with them instead. That, for me, is the biggest distinction in these cases. Ok? If you disagree we can discuss it further but please don't stick my name in a random post, I'm not an ex mod and I know that's just wrong. Mrs x Considering we're on the same page about the initial stages of grooming, I don't know how my post can upset you. That is indeed puzzling. And once a post is on the thread, ownership is lost, so please don't tell me I cannot quote it on the same thread. . If I was quoting from a different thread then (as per a rule here) that is not allowed and you'd be right to condemn my action.
I have seen far too much in this thread people stating the intentions of others rather than asking. It's blatant inference that can be wrong.
Whats puzzling is that you claim we are on the same page as regards the initial stages of grooning but have posted that...
'The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc', yet I never said that these girls would just be subject to replacement affection. I didn't even imply that.
You are simply putting words into my mouth to support your argument.
Of course you can quote others on the same thread but by making an inference on here and stating me as the poster of something I clearly did not say, in someone else's thread could open me up to potential abuse from others who read what you post and agree with your inference. Even though I never said anything about this at the time.
As someone who has been on the end of abusive DMs in the past, from people who have read what others have said about certain posts of mine I just think it's common decency to discuss any issues with that poster, giving them the right to respond.
That's why I'm upset about this, especially from some who states you can slam the post not the poster.
As for a right to reply, that's what I've done to you. I could have posted to all unsundry about how upset this made me feel, but I didn't, I gave you the common decency to address what you said and how it makes me feel.
You could have read that and reacted a variety of ways, as is your want.
You chose to be an arbiter of outrage and instead of just saying sorry for making me feel that you double down saying you find it puzzling how I could be upset, as if you are the only one capable of knowing what's upsetting and whats not.
You could have just said sorry, it was my intention etc but you didn't. You could even have pointed out why you thought what you did but again you didn't.
For someone posting about having empathy in this situation, you seem like you're in short supply of it.
But hey ho, crack on. And just for information you can quote from other threads if its on the same, or similar subject, you just cant mention the poster. A mod clarified that on a thread we're just that thing happened.
Mrs x"I posted before discovering that we're on the same page re initial stages so obviously that could not change what I composed. I wasn't lambasting your post or you. I'm not a judgemental person but I can become frustrated and may come across judgemental. And just because I find something puzzling doesn't mean I'm invalidating your feelings. I've learned that as long as I validate MY feelings, it doesn't matter how others think. That way I can move on. Feelings don't have the rationale behind them as do thoughts. It's a rather healthy thing to do for oneself. I can apologise that you're upset but I won't accept the blame as there was no intention to do so. And thank you for enlightening me about not mentioning the poster's name, I am now aware. Different sites have different rules. Oh BTW posting in the thread, imo, gives anyone a chance to respond, so I don't feel I didn't give you a chance... a chance that you have actually taken, again puzzling. And people who send nasty PMs... absolute cowardly dicks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this escalated quickly "It's a big subject OP but important too. Interesting thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this escalated quickly
It's a big subject OP but important too. Interesting thread. "Quite sad though that people have to start getting personal....the joys of the forum I guess  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If she was to be given back her citizenship and returned to the UK what crime would she be facing and likely sentence? I believe it was illegal to leave the UK for the specific purpose of joining Isis at the time, which she clearly did. Is that the only offence the UK could prosecute her for? I believe so. 🤷♂️ But how many returnees have actually been prosecuted ?" I have no idea to be honest. My question was trying to understand if prosecuted what would be the punishment. Leaving the UK to join Isis is clearly bad and I would expect a term in prison for her but fear it would not be a long term. What she done in other countries is for other countries to deal with and hand out the punishment they feel correct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone saying she only went to isis because she was 15 needs their head wobbled! A 15 year old girl or boy is nothing like a 15 year old 30/40 years ago! She's playing the victim now. Leave her where she is for life. She didn't go cos she was 15, she went, I believe, cos she was groomed.radicalised not groomed stop trying to put her into the same group as victims of grooming gangs, I think the intention of those who make that comparison is clear - they want to suggest the victims of the grooming gangs have some responsibility for their situation which is exactly the attitude taken by the police and social services when those terrible crimes were first discovered. What you think others think is immaterial. The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc (that's the foot in the door/initial stages), they're subject to threats to themselves and to others they love. I've already stated the perps should be strung up.Just read this and I think you are being disingenuous. By saying what you are about 'The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc (that's the foot in the door/initial stages), they're subject to threats to themselves and to others they love.' seems to be an attempt to say I don't have compassion or sympathy for the victim of grooming. That I'm unaware of the impact to these poor girls or that I'm oblivious to the tactics used by these men. All of which I'm aware of and condemn wholeheartedly. My post is just about the initial thought processes involved in grooming as opposed to that of radicalisation. Those girls that were groomed were manipulated by men, who knew they were vulnerable, who saw girls who were looking for affection, love call it what you will. They saw nothing wrong in this and were seduced by this initially. The girl who was radicalised, knew about ISIS and how they operated. She knew all the stuff like t@rture, beheading, murder and the like was wrong. She could have just stopped right at the beginning of this process because of that but didn't. That's the difference, it was a conscious choice for her before any real radicalisation had started, she could have just said 'No, this is wrong' but she didn't, she chose this path. That's the difference between these two cases. Please don't use me in your response to other posts on here, do me the decency of posting directly to me, if you find something I've said as confusing or wrong and I'll discuss this with you. I'd expect more from an ex mod, I might never have seen what you'd written and not had a chance to reply. I think you are a balanced poster, with some great points normally but think on this occasion you are using what I've said, even though I never said it, in an underhanded way and it's quite upsetting. So to make it crystal clear, I'm not downplaying the effect or consequences of grooming or radicalisation. Both are horrendous for the victims. I've not even stated what I think about what should happen to this girl as I don't know, it's very complicated and I've already posted this. I'm just saying that in this case, due to the huge media coverage about ISIS and their aims and methods, she knew what they did was wrong before any contact with them and she could have said no to them at this point but she chose to interact with them instead. That, for me, is the biggest distinction in these cases. Ok? If you disagree we can discuss it further but please don't stick my name in a random post, I'm not an ex mod and I know that's just wrong. Mrs x Considering we're on the same page about the initial stages of grooming, I don't know how my post can upset you. That is indeed puzzling. And once a post is on the thread, ownership is lost, so please don't tell me I cannot quote it on the same thread. . If I was quoting from a different thread then (as per a rule here) that is not allowed and you'd be right to condemn my action.
I have seen far too much in this thread people stating the intentions of others rather than asking. It's blatant inference that can be wrong.
Whats puzzling is that you claim we are on the same page as regards the initial stages of grooning but have posted that...
'The victims, unlike Mrs N's post, won't just be subject to replacement affection etc', yet I never said that these girls would just be subject to replacement affection. I didn't even imply that.
You are simply putting words into my mouth to support your argument.
Of course you can quote others on the same thread but by making an inference on here and stating me as the poster of something I clearly did not say, in someone else's thread could open me up to potential abuse from others who read what you post and agree with your inference. Even though I never said anything about this at the time.
As someone who has been on the end of abusive DMs in the past, from people who have read what others have said about certain posts of mine I just think it's common decency to discuss any issues with that poster, giving them the right to respond.
That's why I'm upset about this, especially from some who states you can slam the post not the poster.
As for a right to reply, that's what I've done to you. I could have posted to all unsundry about how upset this made me feel, but I didn't, I gave you the common decency to address what you said and how it makes me feel.
You could have read that and reacted a variety of ways, as is your want.
You chose to be an arbiter of outrage and instead of just saying sorry for making me feel that you double down saying you find it puzzling how I could be upset, as if you are the only one capable of knowing what's upsetting and whats not.
You could have just said sorry, it was my intention etc but you didn't. You could even have pointed out why you thought what you did but again you didn't.
For someone posting about having empathy in this situation, you seem like you're in short supply of it.
But hey ho, crack on. And just for information you can quote from other threads if its on the same, or similar subject, you just cant mention the poster. A mod clarified that on a thread we're just that thing happened.
Mrs x
I posted before discovering that we're on the same page re initial stages so obviously that could not change what I composed.
I wasn't lambasting your post or you. I'm not a judgemental person but I can become frustrated and may come across judgemental.
And just because I find something puzzling doesn't mean I'm invalidating your feelings. I've learned that as long as I validate MY feelings, it doesn't matter how others think. That way I can move on. Feelings don't have the rationale behind them as do thoughts. It's a rather healthy thing to do for oneself. I can apologise that you're upset but I won't accept the blame as there was no intention to do so.
And thank you for enlightening me about not mentioning the poster's name, I am now aware. Different sites have different rules.
Oh BTW posting in the thread, imo, gives anyone a chance to respond, so I don't feel I didn't give you a chance... a chance that you have actually taken, again puzzling.
And people who send nasty PMs... absolute cowardly dicks.
"Not sure how to respond to this post. I find it a bit conflicted really. You say your not judgemental but say you know you can come cross as judgemental. Why is that? You've called what I've said as been puzzling on a couple of occasions that's judgemental, you've also commented on people's reading abilities saying something about them having a 'reading age of 5 Pfft' and you also judged me when you you said what I didn't say in that offending post. So maybe you just aren't self aware of it but you don't just come across as judgement , maybe you actually are judgemental. Your discussion regarding feeling is very different from anything I've heard before. By saying you find something puzzling is a way of saying you don't understand something. It could be taken as the other person not being able to express what they want to coherently. It could be construed that the person saying this is intellectually the superior in this discourse. This would obviously elucidate negative feeling on behalf of the person hearing this. In these sorts of scenarios it is a linguist device used to invalidate, not only the feelings, but the statement that's it's used against. It gets a bit more confusing for me when you talk about only being concerned about the validation of your own feelings being the only important issue and others feelings don't matter. This is an awful device used by people to say the most hurtful things to others, whilst deflecting all blame away from themselves because they are only telling the truth. You know the type, those that say you look awful, fat, ugly etc when asked for an opinion and then hide behind the 'I'm only telling it how it is". Not very empathic I believe. Terrible people using a terrible tactics. You go on to say that Feelings have no rationale behind them. That's just not true. I know exactly why I love something but hate another. Other than the love of a child, I can tell you why I feel the way I do about the majority things in my life, feelings both good and bad. Then there's the kicker in this particular post. The apology. You say you could apologise for hurting my feeling but you won't accept the blame because thus was not your intention. So you are only sorry for things you do on purpose, you are not, or never have been, sorry for an accident? You are aware that you can be to blame for something you didn't intend but occurred anyway. This is quite a simple premier really. It's behind the difference in all sorts of things. Most dramatically belong the difference between murder and manslaughter. So you are saying you'd only be sorry for causing the death of someone intentionally but not if you caused their death by an accident? Honestly? I've always been led to believe you are either sorry or you're not. Apologies cannot come with a but. If they do they are not a real apology and its a lingustic device to avoid an apology. Im not sure but i thonk its a tactic employed by gaslighters who say thinks like 'im sorry that my doing X caused you to feel upset or hurt". It's classic transference of blame from them onto the victim. It's their fault that the are too sensitive type of thing. But it's worse when a but is used, the '.... Sorry but you made me do it' type of thing. They are then absolving themselves of all blame. Sound familiar? I'd love to know what others think constitutes Gaslighting, my hubby says it to me now and again. I don't want to use it but I've given multiple examples of why using just your own language in just this thread. I think today you've been judgemental, you've not been empathic whilst asking others to be, you've been hurtful and you aren't sorry in the slightest and so whilst I said I didn't want to use it I find this whole post puzzling. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The way I see it she is a British Citizen and should be allowed back into the country.When she lands in the UK she should be arrested at the airport and the police should question her about everything that has happened.After that if there is enough evidence of a crime ( which I personally think there is ) there should be a trial.At the trial it is for a jury to decide if guilty or innocent and the judge to either pass sentence or release her." She is not a British citizen. Agree with the decision to remove her citizenship or don't agree does not change the fact that as things stand she is not British in the eyes of the law. That will remain the case unless the decision is overturned | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this escalated quickly
It's a big subject OP but important too. Interesting thread. "Sorry for hijacking, not my intention at all, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this escalated quickly
It's a big subject OP but important too. Interesting thread. Sorry for hijacking, not my intention at all, Mrs x"No need to apologise, it's an open forum x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this escalated quickly
It's a big subject OP but important too. Interesting thread. Sorry for hijacking, not my intention at all, Mrs x
No need to apologise, it's an open forum x"Yeah but it's not nice, I know that and should behave better, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this escalated quickly
It's a big subject OP but important too. Interesting thread. Sorry for hijacking, not my intention at all, Mrs x
No need to apologise, it's an open forum xYeah but it's not nice, I know that and should behave better, Mrs x"Let myself down being stupid, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mrs N, I'll just say you have misconstrued so very much of my last post. I won't engage further." Another linguistic device, didn't misconstrued a single thing, just quoted you, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well these threads always seem to show people’s true colours. She was groomed as a child - if the girls of Rotherham grooming gangs were victims, but you don’t see her as a victim then that’s reflection on you. They were all girls of the same age. Shes a home grown terrorist She should back and face justice here. " I think the issue is that at the time she ran away to join that death cult it wasn't actually against the law so technically no crime was committed? Does somebody's actions at 15 define the rest of their life? And how much risk is the state able to take that somebody who held extremist views has changed sufficiently to be allowed back into the general population? Then there's the other issue that she may be able to profit financially from her experiences (book deals etc)- would this be fair or right to the victims of extremism? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mrs N, I'll just say you have misconstrued so very much of my last post. I won't engage further.Another linguistic device, didn't misconstrued a single thing, just quoted you, Mrs x" What a shame you didn't get a response to your very well constructed post. This whole thread just goes to show that those who support or excuse terrorism are little more than the cowards and bullies they seek to defend.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mrs N, I'll just say you have misconstrued so very much of my last post. I won't engage further.Another linguistic device, didn't misconstrued a single thing, just quoted you, Mrs x What a shame you didn't get a response to your very well constructed post. This whole thread just goes to show that those who support or excuse terrorism are little more than the cowards and bullies they seek to defend. "Thanks for saying that, sometimes you think you are going mad on here. I'm not here to upset anyone but I'm not here to be upset by anyone too. Just hope I wasn't rude or unfair but believe I was accurate in what I said. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mrs N, I'll just say you have misconstrued so very much of my last post. I won't engage further.Another linguistic device, didn't misconstrued a single thing, just quoted you, Mrs x What a shame you didn't get a response to your very well constructed post. This whole thread just goes to show that those who support or excuse terrorism are little more than the cowards and bullies they seek to defend. Thanks for saying that, sometimes you think you are going mad on here. I'm not here to upset anyone but I'm not here to be upset by anyone too.
Just hope I wasn't rude or unfair but believe I was accurate in what I said.
Mrs x" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mrs N, I'll just say you have misconstrued so very much of my last post. I won't engage further.Another linguistic device, didn't misconstrued a single thing, just quoted you, Mrs x What a shame you didn't get a response to your very well constructed post. This whole thread just goes to show that those who support or excuse terrorism are little more than the cowards and bullies they seek to defend. "Who has shown support for acts of terrorism/terrorists..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mrs N, I'll just say you have misconstrued so very much of my last post. I won't engage further.Another linguistic device, didn't misconstrued a single thing, just quoted you, Mrs x What a shame you didn't get a response to your very well constructed post. This whole thread just goes to show that those who support or excuse terrorism are little more than the cowards and bullies they seek to defend. "I pity you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tbf don't think anyone is supporting terrorism, just discussing what should be done with a potential terrorist, Mrs x" This.. In over fifteen years a pleasing commonality across all the political viewpoint holders on this and in the lounge is that terrorism is abhorrent and deplorable.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"😮💨" Agreed. Depressing thread | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
