Jihadi Brides and their Children.

[Bonefishblues]

She is entitled to the same legal rights as you or I and long may that continue to be so.

She may or may not be the scum of the earth - we will see, but let's not stoop and abandon that which makes us the civilised society we are.

Terribly sorry, but I believe this Liberal handwringing sh1t, and for the moment, my view and those of the majority hold sway.

[Oldjohnw]

In a civilised society, governed by the rule of law, guilt is determined by a court after evidence is presented. It is nothing to with whether individual members of the public see it or not. Having children with someone however distasteful the individual is not actually a crime. Especially if you were a child at the time.

She was 19 when she lost her last child.
She stopped being a child herself when she made the decision to join ISIS.She isn't only guilty of having a child with a distasteful individual she is guilty of being a distasteful individual.She ceased to be civilised when she joined an uncivilised terrorist cell.
There is no point in trying to butter up what you think she is or was.She is what she is.A terrorist.
It would be interesting to see just how many people of Britain actually agree with her returning.I don't think it will be a very high percentage.
Maybe the Govt should poll everyone then let the ones who want her back pay the multi-millions it will cost keeping her safe for the next 50+ years?
We have enough problems here with right wing groups without giving them the satisfaction of saying they were right about us being a soft touch.

So put her on trial and give her the full punishment of the law if found guilty. What are you afraid of?

Actually, in law, she was a child until she was 18. End of: you don't make it up just to suit.

[roubaixtuesday]

In a civilised society, governed by the rule of law, guilt is determined by a court after evidence is presented. It is nothing to with whether individual members of the public see it or not. Having children with someone however distasteful the individual is not actually a crime. Especially if you were a child at the time.

She was 19 when she lost her last child.
She stopped being a child herself when she made the decision to join ISIS.She isn't only guilty of having a child with a distasteful individual she is guilty of being a distasteful individual.She ceased to be civilised when she joined an uncivilised terrorist cell.
There is no point in trying to butter up what you think she is or was.She is what she is.A terrorist.
It would be interesting to see just how many people of Britain actually agree with her returning.I don't think it will be a very high percentage.
Maybe the Govt should poll everyone then let the ones who want her back pay the multi-millions it will cost keeping her safe for the next 50+ years?
We have enough problems here with right wing groups without giving them the satisfaction of saying they were right about us being a soft touch.

Why should the rule of law should not apply to her?

Arbitrary punishment by the executive is the defining feature of dictatorship.

Nobody is suggesting she does not have a case to answer. The government is attempting to punish her without due process.

If justice is not available to her, why should it be available to you? What is to prevent your arbitrary imprisonment on the whim of the Home Secretary? The exact same recourse she is seeking. A fair hearing.

[Oldjohnw]

A funny thing this justice lark. It doesn't depend on the colour of you skin or your race or religion. It doesn't depend on where you live, who you ha e children with of your politics. It does consider what you actions are and these are presented to a court after a thorough examination. And another inconvenient thing about justice, is that even hated people "obviously guilty" are entitled to a defence and then, if found guilty, they are entitled to a review of mitigating circumstances. And the ultimate punishment is regulated by law.

I'm glad about that.

[Navara]

Why should the rule of law should not apply to her?
She lost that right when she join an organisation that goes against every law this Country has

Arbitrary punishment by the executive is the defining feature of dictatorship.
So the Govt not wanting a terrorist back makes it a dictatorship?

Nobody is suggesting she does not have a case to answer. The government is attempting to punish her without due process.
The Govt does not want to punish her because they can't punish her.She is no longer a British citizen!
If justice is not available to her, why should it be available to you? What is to prevent your arbitrary imprisonment on the whim of the Home Secretary? The exact same recourse she is seeking. A fair hearing.
I am a British citizen so I have rights to everything our system has to offer.She isn't so doesn't.If I joined a terrorist group and was stripped of citizenship then I too would forfeit those rights and rightly so

In law, she was a child until she was 18. End of: you don't make it up just to suit.

In the (outdated) law technically a child until 18.
You can work and join the armed forces at 16.There are those wanting the right to vote at 16.16 is the new 18.The law is way out of date with modern times.
My son is 12 going on 13.He is a child only in the sense the law states.He is not a child.He is an adult in body and an adult in mind.If he went out tomorrow and committed a crime he should be tried as an adult.End of:I make nothing up to suit.

This is one of the reasons it's pointless discussing Political matters on Forums.We will obviously never agree so there is little point in arguing.

[roubaixtuesday]

Why should the rule of law should not apply to her?
She lost that right when she join an organisation that goes against every law this Country has

Arbitrary punishment by the executive is the defining feature of dictatorship.
So the Govt not wanting a terrorist back makes it a dictatorship?

Nobody is suggesting she does not have a case to answer. The government is attempting to punish her without due process.
The Govt does not want to punish her because they can't punish her.She is no longer a British citizen!
If justice is not available to her, why should it be available to you? What is to prevent your arbitrary imprisonment on the whim of the Home Secretary? The exact same recourse she is seeking. A fair hearing.
I am a British citizen so I have rights to everything our system has to offer.She isn't so doesn't.If I joined a terrorist group and was stripped of citizenship then I too would forfeit those rights and rightly so

In law, she was a child until she was 18. End of: you don't make it up just to suit.

In the (outdated) law technically a child until 18.
You can work and join the armed forces at 16.There are those wanting the right to vote at 16.16 is the new 18.The law is way out of date with modern times.
My son is 12 going on 13.He is a child only in the sense the law states.He is not a child.He is an adult in body and an adult in mind.If he went out tomorrow and committed a crime he should be tried as an adult.End of:I make nothing up to suit.

This is one of the reasons it's pointless discussing Political matters on Forums.We will obviously never agree so there is little point in arguing.

This is your opinion, which you are entitled to.

It is not, however the law, so is entirely irrelevant to the case in hand.

Laws cannot be applied retrospectively, so there's nothing you can do about it.

You can try to have the law changed by act of Parliament, but note that the UK already has, I think, the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe.

And even if she were an adult in the eyes of the law, she is still entitled to process under the law, which is what the government is trying to avoid.

[Tangled Metal]

TM
We do agree at times

Shhhh! My application to join the Tory party is in!! We need infiltrators from the centre right to get them back where they should be. We'll not get rid of Boris without more younger people eligible to vote for the next leader. Do you really want Give after Boris, or worse!!!

You can always apply for membership of the Labour Party

More chances of the Tory party making sense right now I'm afraid!

That's the biggest problem with British politics, labour lurched left and became dodgy again.

[roubaixtuesday]

Why should the rule of law should not apply to her?
She lost that right when she join an organisation that goes against every law this Country has
She is entitled to a fair hearing to judge whether this is the case or not.

Arbitrary punishment by the executive is the defining feature of dictatorship.
So the Govt not wanting a terrorist back makes it a dictatorship?
No, doing so without showing the alleged terrorist a fair hearing does

Nobody is suggesting she does not have a case to answer. The government is attempting to punish her without due process.
The Govt does not want to punish her because they can't punish her.She is no longer a British citizen!
A punishment meted out without a fair hearing, which is the point


If justice is not available to her, why should it be available to you? What is to prevent your arbitrary imprisonment on the whim of the Home Secretary? The exact same recourse she is seeking. A fair hearing.
I am a British citizen so I have rights to everything our system has to offer.She isn't so doesn't.If I joined a terrorist group and was stripped of citizenship then I too would forfeit those rights and rightly so

I don't think you'd actually think this was "rightly so" if you got a knock on the door and found yourself condemnedwithout a hearing

In law, she was a child until she was 18. End of: you don't make it up just to suit.

In the (outdated) law technically a child until 18.
You can work and join the armed forces at 16.There are those wanting the right to vote at 16.16 is the new 18.The law is way out of date with modern times.
My son is 12 going on 13.He is a child only in the sense the law states.He is not a child.He is an adult in body and an adult in mind.If he went out tomorrow and committed a crime he should be tried as an adult.End of:I make nothing up to suit.

This is one of the reasons it's pointless discussing Political matters on Forums.We will obviously never agree so there is little point in arguing.

Ah, only responded to the bit at the end. Didn't clock you'd done an in line response.

See above my responses. I hope you like the colour.

[Tangled Metal]

If we remove justice from people were don't like like and stop them coming back to their country, if that is acceptable then can a kindly request that the government monitor when Len McCluskey next leaves the country on holiday and remove his citizenship? I know he isn't a jihadist but I dislike his influence / power on parts of British politics and think he's as much to blame for the state of British politics as the Tory hopeless in charge now.

Seriously, there's nasty criminals being brought back from Costa del crime at great expense to find their hide hole and process their legal extradition. They've done a lot more than this 15 year olds ever did when she skipped to go to a fantasy ISIS state. Just remove citizenship and make them someone else's problem.

Not a responsible attitude and British media have complained when nasty pieces of work from eastern Europe have come here and their country basically wiped their hands of the problem.

[reohn2]

In a civilised society, governed by the rule of law, guilt is determined by a court after evidence is presented. It is nothing to with whether individual members of the public see it or not. Having children with someone however distasteful the individual is not actually a crime. Especially if you were a child at the time.

She was 19 when she lost her last child.
She stopped being a child herself when she made the decision to join ISIS.She isn't only guilty of having a child with a distasteful individual she is guilty of being a distasteful individual.She ceased to be civilised when she joined an uncivilised terrorist cell.
There is no point in trying to butter up what you think she is or was.She is what she is.A terrorist.
It would be interesting to see just how many people of Britain actually agree with her returning.I don't think it will be a very high percentage.
Maybe the Govt should poll everyone then let the ones who want her back pay the multi-millions it will cost keeping her safe for the next 50+ years?
We have enough problems here with right wing groups without giving them the satisfaction of saying they were right about us being a soft touch.

Bold and underlined my emphasis.

If it were left up to the people to decide they'd vote for a return of capital punishement.
Capital punishment like removing someone's citizenship is a final irrecoverable step.
There have been many miscarriages of justice regarding capital punishment,this is why we have a justice system seperate from politics and political gain by apeasement of the mob.
This young woman is inoccent until proven guilty,the Home Secretary's decision to remove her citizenship denies her that right of law and a fair hearing
The same point's been made by RT up thread.

No matter how distasteful the law is to you it is the law and even the PM or Home Sec cannot and should not be allowed to override it,otherwise we descend into a chaotic dictatorship of the worst kind.
This case and it's outcome has much larger implications than just Shamima Begum it's about politicians overruling the law for their own ends

YVMV mine won't.

EDIT:- as an afterthought.By you're standard,should UK motorists have a vote on whether cyclists have the same rights as themselves or should cyclist rights on UK roads be less?

[Vorpal]

I was very lucky in that none of the stupid things I did when I was a teen had life-long consequences beyond some guilt, and the education I got from the consequences. But not everyone is so lucky or privileged.

She will likely pay for her mistakes and the trauma they have caused her for the rest of her life.

She was *15*. In many countries, what happened to her would be considered rape. I doubt that she really had any idea what was going to happen to her.

Also, her decision was not solely on her, and but also on her parents and the government, who were *responsible* for her well being. On that basis alone, she should be offered counselling and support, rather than rejection.

Government failure to addres issues with social cohesion and integration certainly affected her and her decision to leave.

[Tangled Metal]

Whenever you get a terrorist action in Western European country your often hear in the media the history of the often 18-30 year old men committing the crime and often dying I'm the process. For example the shootings in Paris outside the rock concert a few years back. There were cases of marginalisation, petty crime and drug abuse. Then they got radicalised. I guess it's down to fitting in sandbags somewhere.

There's many be sections of society that don't fit in. You hear of Muslims who become radicalised but there's all races and even many religions who probably fit the outsiders category. You've had white Scandinavian terrorists and even that one from New Zealand a while back. I wonder whether by the time they become extreme in their views it's not too late. Perhaps efforts should centre on preventing the conditions that alienates people from the mainstream society. Is that too socialist for a right wing type?

My Tory party application is really in danger now. I think I'll have to bow out of this thread until I'm in!!!

[Navara]

Why should the rule of law should not apply to her?
She lost that right when she join an organisation that goes against every law this Country has
She is entitled to a fair hearing to judge whether this is the case or not.
No
Arbitrary punishment by the executive is the defining feature of dictatorship.
So the Govt not wanting a terrorist back makes it a dictatorship?
No, doing so without showing the alleged terrorist a fair hearing does
No

Nobody is suggesting she does not have a case to answer. The government is attempting to punish her without due process.
The Govt does not want to punish her because they can't punish her.She is no longer a British citizen!
A punishment meted out without a fair hearing, which is the point
No hearing needed


If justice is not available to her, why should it be available to you? What is to prevent your arbitrary imprisonment on the whim of the Home Secretary? The exact same recourse she is seeking. A fair hearing.
I am a British citizen so I have rights to everything our system has to offer.She isn't so doesn't.If I joined a terrorist group and was stripped of citizenship then I too would forfeit those rights and rightly so

I don't think you'd actually think this was "rightly so" if you got a knock on the door and found yourself condemnedwithout a hearing
Yes I would if I was a Terrorist/Jihadist who turned against a Country i am no longer residing in



Ah, only responded to the bit at the end. Didn't clock you'd done an in line response.

See above my responses. I hope you like the colour.

Nice colour but I prefer red

EDIT:- as an afterthought.By you're standard,should UK motorists have a vote on whether cyclists have the same rights as themselves or should cyclist rights on UK roads be less?

Did you read my statement above regarding the futility of arguing about Politics?That statement of yours highlights why in a nutshell I don't bother.Nothing whatsoever to do with the OP but trying to score points by bringing motoring and cycling into a thread about Terrorism!!???.
OK you win.You're obviously right and I'm wrong and I'm sure your dad is also bigger than mine.
I'll keep my Political arguments face to face in future.

[pete75]

Why should the rule of law should not apply to her?
She lost that right when she join an organisation that goes against every law this Country has

Arbitrary punishment by the executive is the defining feature of dictatorship.
So the Govt not wanting a terrorist back makes it a dictatorship?

Nobody is suggesting she does not have a case to answer. The government is attempting to punish her without due process.
The Govt does not want to punish her because they can't punish her.She is no longer a British citizen!
If justice is not available to her, why should it be available to you? What is to prevent your arbitrary imprisonment on the whim of the Home Secretary? The exact same recourse she is seeking. A fair hearing.
I am a British citizen so I have rights to everything our system has to offer.She isn't so doesn't.If I joined a terrorist group and was stripped of citizenship then I too would forfeit those rights and rightly so

In law, she was a child until she was 18. End of: you don't make it up just to suit.

In the (outdated) law technically a child until 18.
You can work and join the armed forces at 16.There are those wanting the right to vote at 16.16 is the new 18.The law is way out of date with modern times.
My son is 12 going on 13.He is a child only in the sense the law states.He is not a child.He is an adult in body and an adult in mind.If he went out tomorrow and committed a crime he should be tried as an adult.End of:I make nothing up to suit.

This is one of the reasons it's pointless discussing Political matters on Forums.We will obviously never agree so there is little point in arguing.

Why do some people keep writing "End of" to terminate a point in a discussion. It signifies nothing and achieves nothing other than making them look a bit foolish.

[Oldjohnw]

Why should the rule of law should not apply to her?
She lost that right when she join an organisation that goes against every law this Country has

Arbitrary punishment by the executive is the defining feature of dictatorship.
So the Govt not wanting a terrorist back makes it a dictatorship?

Nobody is suggesting she does not have a case to answer. The government is attempting to punish her without due process.
The Govt does not want to punish her because they can't punish her.She is no longer a British citizen!
If justice is not available to her, why should it be available to you? What is to prevent your arbitrary imprisonment on the whim of the Home Secretary? The exact same recourse she is seeking. A fair hearing.
I am a British citizen so I have rights to everything our system has to offer.She isn't so doesn't.If I joined a terrorist group and was stripped of citizenship then I too would forfeit those rights and rightly so

In law, she was a child until she was 18. End of: you don't make it up just to suit.

In the (outdated) law technically a child until 18.
You can work and join the armed forces at 16.There are those wanting the right to vote at 16.16 is the new 18.The law is way out of date with modern times.
My son is 12 going on 13.He is a child only in the sense the law states.He is not a child.He is an adult in body and an adult in mind.If he went out tomorrow and committed a crime he should be tried as an adult.End of:I make nothing up to suit.

This is one of the reasons it's pointless discussing Political matters on Forums.We will obviously never agree so there is little point in arguing.

Why do some people keep writing "End of" to terminate a point in a discussion. It signifies nothing and achieves nothing other than making them look a bit foolish.

In the instance I used it it really was the end of the argument. If you are under 18 you are a child in law. There is no further point to make. Saying otherwise or disputing it will not change anything.