Page 30 of 30

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 21 Jul 2020, 7:35pm
by reohn2
reohn2 wrote: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?

Navara wrote: 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.


The point being made was everything to do with the OP and with the law,in that that if you leave such decisions as capital punishment or cycling on the road to a 'people's' vote there wouldn't be enough gallows and cycling would be banned.
The same applies to Begum,the law is the law and this government has stepped outside of it in removing her citizenship.

My Dad's dead though I've always I fought my own battles since becoming an adult!
You OTOH seem to prefer mob rule to the law of the land!

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 22 Jul 2020, 12:25am
by pete75
Oldjohnw wrote:
pete75 wrote:
Navara wrote:

In the (outdated) law technically a child until 18.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work and join the armed forces at 16.There are those wanting the right to vote at 16.16 is the new 18.The law is way out of date with modern times.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.


Except, of course, you are not. An under 18 year old is classed as a minor not a child under English law.

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 22 Jul 2020, 4:12am
by Oldjohnw
An interesting distinction but the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as "a human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier"

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 22 Jul 2020, 7:42am
by yakdiver
In the UK your still a child if your a migrant under 25

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 22 Jul 2020, 8:13am
by francovendee
yakdiver wrote:In the UK your still a child if your a migrant under 25

Source please.

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 22 Jul 2020, 8:56am
by pete75
Oldjohnw wrote:An interesting distinction but the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as "a human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier"


Whatever that increasingly irrelevant organisation says is not UK law. In Scotland minority ends at 16. Would you describe sixth formers as children?

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 22 Jul 2020, 9:09am
by Oldjohnw
It is English law. Certain child protection rights are lost at 16 but they are a child until their 18th birthday. You can object all day but it will alter nothing.

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 22 Jul 2020, 5:08pm
by pete75
Oldjohnw wrote:It is English law. Certain child protection rights are lost at 16 but they are a child until their 18th birthday. You can object all day but it will alter nothing.

The law state they are a minor not a child. The reality is childhood ends at different ages for different people.

Would you describe the winner of this boxing match as a child?


Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 22 Jul 2020, 5:24pm
by Bonefishblues
pete75 wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:It is English law. Certain child protection rights are lost at 16 but they are a child until their 18th birthday. You can object all day but it will alter nothing.

The law state they are a minor not a child. The reality is childhood ends at different ages for different people.

Would you describe the winner of this boxing match as a child?


Physically, perhaps not, however as far as emotional development was concerned, very much so.

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 22 Jul 2020, 6:37pm
by Oldjohnw
Doesn't matter what I think. The law treats someone under 18 as a child. All children, whatever their assumed level of maturity.

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 23 Jul 2020, 8:32am
by pete75
Oldjohnw wrote:Doesn't matter what I think. The law treats someone under 18 as a child. All children, whatever their assumed level of maturity.

A minor not a child.

Anyhow I thought this girl should have been allowed back and to continue her life here. Listening to folk like you has convinced me otherwise.

Re: Jihadi Brides and their Children.

Posted: 23 Jul 2020, 8:56am
by Oldjohnw
pete75 wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:Doesn't matter what I think. The law treats someone under 18 as a child. All children, whatever their assumed level of maturity.

A minor not a child.

Anyhow I thought this girl should have been allowed back and to continue her life here. Listening to folk like you has convinced me otherwise.


I fear you are making a difference which actually, to all intents and purposes, doesn't exist.