Cycling UK Forum

reohn2 wrote:

sjs wrote:

mercalia wrote:I think what the Home Secretary's done is quite pathetic and disgusting as if it is Bangladesh's problem and fault. If ever I had a doubt of the quality of some of the politicians then no longer, he dont seem to be one of the best this country has to offer in fact no better than those you hear run on in your local pub after a few pints? God help us if there are more of them in Westminster of his calibre

I don't often agree with you, but on this, absolutely.

Yep agreed,more idiocy from the Tories,his desicion will be appealed against,overturned costing the country more money in the courts.

You don't think it was, you know, perhaps, just ever so slightly, just to a vanishingly tiny degree, well, motivated by politics, do you?

buttock-orifice.

ETA
Sometimes the swear filter does it better

Bangladeshi foreign secretary equivalent has released a statement that this woman was not a citizen, had never applied for citizenship/passport and would not get a passport or citizenship. She would not be allowed into the country.

Also be heard about this from the media. No contact with hm government or anyone other than the press (UK) contacting them for a statement.

So Bangladesh is out. What is the other option? Yes, her "husband's" country? Well would you recognise a marriage held in the caliphate? I think there's probably very few nations who recognised the caliphate. If you don't recognise the state you can't have reciprocal arrangements with them over things like marriage.

So how in all conscience can you claim she's got another nationality?

I do know of one person who can, Tommy Robinson for one. He's already said plenty of lies. He's released footage of the father of one of the other teenagers who went over together in a fundamentalist protests dating it was this woman. It wasn't it was the father of the girl who died in a bombing on Syria. One of the other 15 year old girls. He's said she was married in Bangladesh so it was a legal marriage out there. She's not been to the country. She was born in Bangladesh, nope in Britain. She was involved in isis beheading video. I believe there's no evidence supporting this but you never know for sure so I guess that'll sell well with his supporters.

So which of you guys share views with Tommy Robinson?

The minimum age to marry in the Netherlands is 18. Independent of the country in which it occurred, it is quite likely that the Netherlands would not recognise the marriage.

Bonefishblues wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

sjs wrote:
I don't often agree with you, but on this, absolutely.

Yep agreed,more idiocy from the Tories,his desicion will be appealed against,overturned costing the country more money in the courts.

You don't think it was, you know, perhaps, just ever so slightly, just to a vanishingly tiny degree, well, motivated by politics, do you?

There's a smidgen of a chance in that direction

buttock-orifice.

Sometimes you say the sweetest things to me

I think the way the present govt is dealing with Shamima Begum says a great deal about the tory party, it still is the nasty party, god help you if you fall into its sight eg Universal Credit, homelessness, food banks and so on. We shouldnt be surprised that this crafty pitiless debased Home Secretary used a legal loop hole, be very much afraid thats how he /they will also treat YOU if you are not one of them? Many 15-18 years olds are obnoxious people with stupid ideas but are not beyond redemption. Some one described adolescence as a form of madness that you grow out of. By all means do your best to keep the fighters from returning but assuming Shamima Begum wasnt one, room for a bit of flexibility? I keep on hearing daily these days of knife attacks in London some very close to home, I doubt Shamima Begum is any worse than the thugs who do these acts or that teenager who murdered that six year old?

No, I think he's skewered himself on the terms of his own Order. She's stateless, QED he had no authority to do what he did. The most shameless piece of politicing I've seen in a long time - and it could only be done by someone without shame.

Whilst her original interview was disturbing, I fail to see how, for instance, her being 'unfazed by seeing severed heads in bins' presents her as a threat to National Security.

He is an utter buttock-orifice.

Bonefishblues wrote:No, I think he's skewered himself on the terms of his own Order. She's stateless, QED he had no authority to do what he did. The most shameless piece of politicing I've seen in a long time - and it could only be done by someone without shame.

Whilst her original interview was disturbing, I fail to see how, for instance, her being 'unfazed by seeing severed heads in bins' presents her as a threat to National Security.

He is an utter buttock-orifice.

You can say that again

They're TORIES,what can you expect?

There is one big point being missed here in the hysteria over this one individual

Reports vary, but somewhere in the region of 800 UK individuals involved with ISIS including 50 children and 100 others are women.

As Isis is beaten, they become disillusioned (or a variety of other reasons) they need to return to the UK.

How do we deal with these people?

reohn2 wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:No, I think he's skewered himself on the terms of his own Order. She's stateless, QED he had no authority to do what he did. The most shameless piece of politicing I've seen in a long time - and it could only be done by someone without shame.

Whilst her original interview was disturbing, I fail to see how, for instance, her being 'unfazed by seeing severed heads in bins' presents her as a threat to National Security.

He is an utter buttock-orifice.

You can say that again

They're what passes as the current breed of politicians, what can you expect?

Edited for political agnosticism...

Cunobelin wrote:There is one big point being missed here in the hysteria over this one individual

Reports vary, but somewhere in the region of 800 UK individuals involved with ISIS including 50 children and 100 others are women.

As Isis is beaten, they become disillusioned (or a variety of other reasons) they need to return to the UK.

How do we deal with these people?

News says half of them are already back, so my best insight is that we are already on the case, as it were...

Cunobelin wrote:There is one big point being missed here in the hysteria over this one individual

Reports vary, but somewhere in the region of 800 UK individuals involved with ISIS including 50 children and 100 others are women.

As Isis is beaten, they become disillusioned (or a variety of other reasons) they need to return to the UK.

How do we deal with these people?

In the same way you deal with any suspected criminal, obviously children should be treated differently to adults.

Bonefishblues wrote:No, I think he's skewered himself on the terms of his own Order. She's stateless, QED he had no authority to do what he did. The most shameless piece of politicing I've seen in a long time - and it could only be done by someone without shame.

Whilst her original interview was disturbing, I fail to see how, for instance, her being 'unfazed by seeing severed heads in bins' presents her as a threat to National Security.

He is an utter buttock-orifice.

Would that be the later interviews where she justified the Manchester bombing?

Would that not be a sentiment that could. just be determined as not being 100% against terrorism in the UK?

Bonefishblues wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:No, I think he's skewered himself on the terms of his own Order. She's stateless, QED he had no authority to do what he did. The most shameless piece of politicing I've seen in a long time - and it could only be done by someone without shame.

Whilst her original interview was disturbing, I fail to see how, for instance, her being 'unfazed by seeing severed heads in bins' presents her as a threat to National Security.

He is an utter buttock-orifice.

You can say that again

They're what passes as the current breed of politicians, what can you expect?

Edited for political agnosticism...

How very dare you!

reohn2 wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:

reohn2 wrote:You can say that again

They're what passes as the current breed of politicians, what can you expect?

Edited for political agnosticism...

How very dare you!

You are BP's alter-ego AICMFP!

Cunobelin wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:No, I think he's skewered himself on the terms of his own Order. She's stateless, QED he had no authority to do what he did. The most shameless piece of politicing I've seen in a long time - and it could only be done by someone without shame.

Whilst her original interview was disturbing, I fail to see how, for instance, her being 'unfazed by seeing severed heads in bins' presents her as a threat to National Security.

He is an utter buttock-orifice.

Would that be the later interviews where she justified the Manchester bombing?

Would that not be a sentiment that could. just be determined as not being 100% against terrorism in the UK?

Not 100% against terrorism in itself doesn't necessarily present her as a threat to National Security though?