O/T I want to come home

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:29 pm

Claretuk wrote:Nah, let her back in then she can blow up a load of Brits when she's chosen her location seen as she has been trained up for last 4 years to do so..

But yeah, what on earth are we thinking? Soon as our back is turned she'll be straight down the local jihadi bomb shop.

Claretuk · Post by **Claretuk** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:41 pm

When it's your mum,dad ,brother or sister that is blown up by her or others we let back in, let's see if you still have the same passion for terrorists coming home..

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:46 pm

Claretuk wrote:When it's your mum,dad ,brother or sister that is blown up by her or others we let back in, let's see if you still have the same passion for terrorists coming home..

Because of the Good Friday agreement many bombers were freed.

timshorts · Post by **timshorts** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:01 pm

Slightly irritatingly, I seem to be voting with Jacob Rees Mogg and IT on this one but for rather different reasons.
She's a piece of tossphleghm but she's our piece of toss still. She hardly became a Syrian.
If we were allowed to say no, we aren't having that piece of toss back, then by the same reasoning, we wouldn't be able to repatriate all the **** that come over here if their own countries dont want their **** back.
We can't have it both ways. Incarcerate her, put the child in care and find a decent Muslim family to adopt him/her. her views are such that it would be a danger to allow a child in her care.
I suppose the ultimate punishment would be to put a bracelet on her so that she could never leave Bethnal green.

timshorts · Post by **timshorts** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:04 pm

Really?
I can say tossphleghm, but I can't say skum?

Claretuk · Post by **Claretuk** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:11 pm

Spijed wrote:Because of the Good Friday agreement many bombers were freed.

It's 2019 now, not 1998.. my above statement stands..

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:24 pm

I suppose we should be grateful that turtle suddenly seems so against grooming and the victims of grooming.

Shame the gobshite was as outspoken for the victims in Rochdale Rotherham etc...but then most people know why

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:26 pm

Bit unfair that.

Everyone was disgusted at what went on, but not everyone wanted to suddenly assume all asians and muslims did it, and quite correctly called out those who made that sweeping generalisation.

lakedistrictclaret · Post by **lakedistrictclaret** » Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:39 pm

She is a British citizen. The government can't renounce her citizenship, as this would render her stateless.

If she wants to come back to the UK, fine. But she has to understand that she will be interrogated thoroughly and may well be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act, and spend many years in prison.

She would be interviewed about how she became radicalised, and if she if she is prepared to give details about this, including naming names, then she can expect a certain amount of leniency.

She is delusional, however, about the future of her unborn child. If she is allowed back before it is born, the Social Services will be at her bedside at the birth with a Care Order, ready to whisk the baby away. To think that she might keep the child, or even have her family look after it, is unrealistic.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:47 am

I'd be against allowing her back, I'm all for repentance & rehabilitation, but in this case you'd have to deploy security services for monitoring purposes & also the wider message to other people having doubts, it's a 1 way ticket.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:27 am

timshorts wrote:Slightly irritatingly, I seem to be voting with Jacob Rees Mogg and IT on this one but for rather different reasons.
She's a piece of tossphleghm but she's our piece of toss still. She hardly became a Syrian.
If we were allowed to say no, we aren't having that piece of toss back, then by the same reasoning, we wouldn't be able to repatriate all the **** that come over here if their own countries dont want their **** back.
We can't have it both ways. Incarcerate her, put the child in care and find a decent Muslim family to adopt him/her. her views are such that it would be a danger to allow a child in her care.
I suppose the ultimate punishment would be to put a bracelet on her so that she could never leave Bethnal green.

There's worse places than bethnal green...send her there.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:32 am

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:I suppose we should be grateful that turtle suddenly seems so against grooming and the victims of grooming.

Shame the gobshite was as outspoken for the victims in Rochdale Rotherham etc...but then most people know why

Get it everyone? He's trying to suggest that i support the sexual abuse of minors, but he's too much of a coward to actually come out and state it cleanly.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:34 am

timshorts wrote: I suppose the ultimate punishment would be to put a bracelet on her so that she could never leave Bethnal green.

Easy there, Satan.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:37 am

Jakubclaret wrote:I'd be against allowing her back, I'm all for repentance & rehabilitation, but in this case you'd have to deploy security services for monitoring purposes & also the wider message to other people having doubts, it's a 1 way ticket.

How do we get around the fact that she's not been convicted of anything yet? Do we throw away 'innocent until proven guilty' for some people?

Murger · Post by **Murger** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:57 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:How do we get around the fact that she's not been convicted of anything yet? Do we throw away 'innocent until proven guilty' for some people?

She's guilty as soon as she jumped on a plane and headed for Syria.

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:00 am

Murger wrote:She's guilty as soon as she jumped on a plane and headed for Syria.

Is it illegal to get a plane to Syria?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:02 am

Murger wrote:She's guilty as soon as she jumped on a plane and headed for Syria.

And what legal process was used to legally determine her guilt? Has she been charged, prosecuted, tried and convicted? Has the legal process been used to make sure there were no mitigating factors, such as diminished capacity, coercion, etc?

And if no legal process has been used to determine guilt then how can you be sure she's guilty?

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:28 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:How do we get around the fact that she's not been convicted of anything yet? Do we throw away 'innocent until proven guilty' for some people?

At the end of the day, she went to Syria with the intentions of joining a terrorist group, the article says she has no regrets which suggests no remorse, as for not convicting yet, why should we bother with that that if she's already there, it would cost money going through a legal system, just leave her there & don't accept her back, it's the easiest option all round.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:50 am

Jakubclaret wrote:At the end of the day, she went to Syria with the intentions of joining a terrorist group, the article says she has no regrets which suggests no remorse, as for not convicting yet, why should we bother with that that if she's already there, it would cost money going through a legal system, just leave her there & don't accept her back, it's the easiest option all round.

And this is why i'm convinced that people such as yourself really don't like what this country stands for. You will gladly throw away our most sacred principles just because it will make you feel better.

You have more in common with our enemies than you like to think.

Know what else costs money going through our legal system? Literally everything that goes through it. So what's different about... oh, yes, i remember now. She's a Muslim, and they don't deserve a fair trial like the rest of us.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:57 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:And this is why i'm convinced that people such as yourself really don't like what this country stands for. You will gladly throw away our most sacred principles just because it will make you feel better.

You have more in common with our enemies than you like to think.

Massive public support against any sort of legal process & leniency & I don't blame them, if the circumstances in this case were different you could perhaps do things differently, it's also needs to act as a deterrent. I don't see what a expensive legal process would achieve, we all know what went on - she went to Syria to join a terrorist organisation & now she's fallen pregnant & wants to take advantage of our benefit system as it will suit her. That's the top & bottom, I'm sorry.

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:05 am

1000 years of judiciary system destroyed just to please the right wingers.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:07 am

Jakubclaret wrote:Massive public support against any sort of legal process & leniency & I don't blame them, if the circumstances in this case were different you could perhaps do things differently, it's also needs to act as a deterrent. I don't see what a expensive legal process would achieve, we all know what went on - she went to Syria to join a terrorist organisation & now she's fallen pregnant & wants to take advantage of our benefit system as it will suit her. That's the top & bottom, I'm sorry.

This is why people like you are far more dangerous to this country than any terrorist. As i've said before, all they can do is kill people, that's all they've got. But people like you, and attitudes like yours, can kill democracies. You're weak. Terrorists aim to terrorise us into throwing out our laws. They want us to treat minorities differently. ISIS want us to persecute Muslims by denying them equal rights under the law, and here you are advocating for the very thing they're trying to achieve. You want what they want.

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:16 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:ISIS want us to persecute Muslims by denying them equal rights under the law, and here you are advocating for the very thing they're trying to achieve. You want what they want.

We’d be persecuting a terrorist not a muslim.

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:17 am

Dyched wrote:We’d be persecuting a terrorist not a muslim.

Until she is convicted she isn't anything.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:19 am

In the nicest possible way, its people with the attitude that laws can be bent to suit what they want who end up wondering

"Where have all the Jews gone?"

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:28 am

Dyched wrote:We’d be persecuting a terrorist not a muslim.

No, not even terrorists should be persecuted. Unless you want to find yourself being called a terrorist, just so that the state can persecute you.

Get this into your head: Literally no one should be persecuted by the state, no matter what they've done.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:42 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is why people like you are far more dangerous to this country than any terrorist. As i've said before, all they can do is kill people, that's all they've got. But people like you, and attitudes like yours, can kill democracies. You're weak. Terrorists aim to terrorise us into throwing out our laws. They want us to treat minorities differently. ISIS want us to persecute Muslims by denying them equal rights under the law, and here you are advocating for the very thing they're trying to achieve. You want what they want.

I disagree, you need to be firm & disciplined, I'm not even looking at her skin or religion here, Matt Smith a Christian could have gone I'd be advising the same course of action, she's pregnant & in no way is this the baby's fault, you've also got to wonder where's the father in all of this, do we accept him here also after all he must be part of the package, why don't we house all the 3 of them on benefits of course & we don't need to stop there, are we taking his family into consideration, wouldn't be nice as a extension also accepting them here so it can be 1 nice happy family.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:45 am

But what about Laws Jakub?

They are quite important if you want to hold a society together like.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:45 am

Jakubclaret wrote:I disagree, you need to be firm & disciplined, I'm not even looking at her skin or religion here, Matt Smith a Christian could have gone I'd be advising the same course of action, she's pregnant & in no way is this the baby's fault, you've also got to wonder where's the father in all of this, do we accept him here also after all he must be part of the package, why don't we house all the 3 of them on benefits of course & we don't need to stop there, are we taking his family into consideration, wouldn't be nice as a extension also accepting them here so it can be 1 nice happy family.

Disagree all you like, but the fact is that you want to get rid of a fundamental piece of this country.

We have laws in this country. Protected in those laws is the fundamental right that everyone deserves a free and fair trial for their crimes.

You don't believe in that fundamental right, do you?

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:46 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:But what about Laws Jakub?

They are quite important if you want to hold a society together like.

She should have thought about that sooner, we have laws the idea is you are supposed to abide by them.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:48 am

Yes, not disagreeing with that.

But people who disagree and break laws get tried in a court of law for breaking those laws. Not summarily shot or left to die in the desert.*

*those two jihadis who were effectively executed by a drone strike is something different to this lass I think

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:50 am

Jakubclaret wrote:She should have thought about that sooner, we have laws the idea is you are supposed to abide by them.

And yet you want to violate those laws by denying this girl her rights. Rights that are protected by those laws.

Why is this girl any different to anyone else who violates our laws? Why do they deserve free and fair trials but this girl doesn't?

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:50 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yes, not disagreeing with that.

But people who disagree and break laws get tried for breaking those laws. Not summarily shot or left to die in the desert.

It's different circumstances here as she's in Syria, it's just easier if we forget about her & dissociate any involvement we had with her & move on from it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:12 am

Jakubclaret wrote:It's different circumstances here as she's in Syria, it's just easier if we forget about her & dissociate any involvement we had with her & move on from it.

My previous question wasn't rhetorical.

I'll ask it in a different way. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
Everyone deserves a free and fair trial for crimes they are accused of.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:13 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:My previous question wasn't rhetorical.

I'll ask it in a different way. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
Everyone deserves a free and fair trial for crimes they are accused of.

It isn't a black & white question.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:20 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:My previous question wasn't rhetorical.

I'll ask it in a different way. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
Everyone deserves a free and fair trial for crimes they are accused of.

Good luck getting a straight answer out of Jakub.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:23 am

Jakubclaret wrote:It isn't a black & white question.

Yes it is. You either believe that everyone deserves to be treated equally, or you don't. There are literally only two possible answers. You either agree with it, or you don't. So which one is it?

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:26 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:My previous question wasn't rhetorical.

I'll ask it in a different way. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
Everyone deserves a free and fair trial for crimes they are accused of.

I'll ask you a question. "Do you believe people are free to make their own choices in life and have to live with the consequences of that choice?"

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:26 am

Firthy wrote:I'll ask you a question. "Do you believe people are free to make their own choices in life and have to live with the consequences of that choice?"

Of course.

Now it's your turn to answer the question i asked Jakub.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:29 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yes it is. You either believe that everyone deserves to be treated equally, or you don't. There are literally only two possible answers. You either agree with it, or you don't. So which one is it?

No it isn't, & these sample survey questions won't be answered, on a scale of 1-10 you do strongly agree or strongly disagree, we spend far too much money on legal processes when we know people are guilty because its seen as a moralistically right thing to do.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:31 am

This is hilarious, and equally concerning.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:32 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Of course.

Now it's your turn to answer the question i asked Jakub.

She's no longer a British citizen so doesn't come under our laws because she's in a different country therefore doesn't warrant a trial. Different people will have different opinions on wether this is fair or not.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:37 am

Firthy wrote:She's no longer a British citizen so doesn't come under our laws because she's in a different country therefore doesn't warrant a trial. Different people will have different opinions on wether this is fair or not.

Is that factually correct or have you just made it up?

mdd2 · Post by **mdd2** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:37 am

Jakubclaret wrote:No it isn't, & these sample survey questions won't be answered, on a scale of 1-10 you do strongly agree or strongly disagree, we spend far too much money on legal processes when we know people are guilty because its seen as a moralistically right thing to do.

Stefan Kisko, David Bentley, Timothy Evans to name three.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:37 am

Why is she not a British Citizen?

Is it because she's brown and a Muslim or something?

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:41 am

mdd2 wrote:Stefan Kisko, David Bentley, Timothy Evans to name three.

True, we've got DNA & forensic science now to eliminate doubts, the days of old fashioned policing are long gone when assessing evidence.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:42 am

Firthy wrote:She's no longer a British citizen so doesn't come under our laws because she's in a different country therefore doesn't warrant a trial. Different people will have different opinions on whether this is fair or not.

Since when did she become "no longer a British citizen"?

Also, you have no idea how the law works, do you? Do you think that if you commit a crime here and then leave the country that you are no longer punishable for your crime?

Are you really so ignorant of how our laws work that you think someone who isn't a citizen of this country can come here, commit crimes, and then leave and not deserve a free and trial?

How long have you believed this nonsense?

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:42 am

If she's still a British citizen then why doesn't she just get on a plane and fly home without all this fuss?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:44 am

Because she's in a refugee camp in a country in which we have no diplomatic presence.

No one wants to rescue her, but its not easy travelling in a war torn country when heavily pregnant.

Based on what I heard from a diplomatic expert on the wireless yesterday is that she has to present herself to a UK consulate or an embassy in one of the neighbouring countries and we'll then arrange her travel home.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:45 am

Firthy wrote:If she's still a British citizen then why doesn't she just get on a plane and fly home without all this fuss?

"Hiya Mr. ISIS leader man. Can i have my passport back for a minute? I need it for a thing."