O/T I want to come home

ColonelCool · Post by **ColonelCool** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:08 pm

Bordeauxclaret wrote:She’s not helping herself with all these interviews.
As thick as they come.

Unfortunately that’s not a get out clause. She should stay where she is or be in a British prison.

Stay where she is, please.

DustyBawls · Post by **DustyBawls** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:37 pm

Shemima Begum wants to return to the UK and live a 'normal life' after her time being bombed with ISIS? I say we ease her in and use it as an excuse to air raid the shithole estate she ******* came from.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:52 pm

There are about 800 British jihadis, so the Daily Telegraph tells us. Few of them have been convicted of any crime, and it will be hard to get proof of any crimes serious enough to give them long jail sentences. And you can be sure that many of them, in principle, still agree that every member of this message board, and our parents, children, babies, brothers, sisters, be they Muslim, Christian, atheist, Jewish, or Jedi Knights, all deserve to die. And they have all been prepared to die in support of the principle that you and I should be blown to bits.

How much is it going to cost to watch them all?

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:45 pm

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:09 pm

[quote="Imploding Turtle"]See what I

Like winding a clock up. All quantity and no quality uyou.

atlantalad · Post by **atlantalad** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:04 pm

I have no inclination to read through the last few pages of IT spats to see if anyone has proposed a solution. But may I suggest one logical outcome that does not infringe international law.

Surely, if say a foreign national committed some heinous act against the public in UK, during their stay in the UK, then we would have every right to hold them and put them on trial in the UK for the crimes they committed and pass appropriate sentences. We would not repatriate the criminal back to their country of origin for them to dealt with by their judicial system.

Likewise then, this woman has entered Syria - without authority, and is presumed to have committed crimes against the Syrian state - she should therefore be tried in Syria for the crimes she may have committed and accordingly suffer the punishments set by the Syrians.
" When in Rome ...... "

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:38 pm

Perfectly fine idea in theory, almost certainly a little bit more difficult in reality considering the complicated mess that is Syria. For a start, ISIS has been quite a convenient 'enemy' for Assad, his primary enemy being the FSA, and with that in mind you'd need to be an optimist of the highest order to trust in the standard of jurisprudence under a dictator at the best of times, never mind during a time of civil war.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:52 am

She was 15 when she left.
I don't think 16 year olds should be allowed to vote in a general election, so I'm not going to be a hypocrite and wish we break our own laws by refusing her right to re enter the UK

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:36 am

Stayingup wrote:You really are wasting space on here. Stupidity personified.

It's hilarious that immediately after saying i'm all quantity, no quality, you make this post to ignore the perfectly good question I asked.

I'll ask again: Do you people even understand what would happen in this country if we did throw away out justice system in favour of one where only some people have the right to a trial?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:39 am

dsr wrote:There are about 800 British jihadis, so the Daily Telegraph tells us. Few of them have been convicted of any crime, and it will be hard to get proof of any crimes serious enough to give them long jail sentences. And you can be sure that many of them, in principle, still agree that every member of this message board, and our parents, children, babies, brothers, sisters, be they Muslim, Christian, atheist, Jewish, or Jedi Knights, all deserve to die. And they have all been prepared to die in support of the principle that you and I should be blown to bits.

How much is it going to cost to watch them all?

Maybe if there's no evidence that they've committed any crimes it's because they haven't committed any crimes.

What the **** is wrong with you people? Yes, these people believe things that we find disgusting. So what? That's not a crime. Should it be a crime? Do you want to live in a country where we lock people up for their beliefs? You people are ******* insane.

Dazzler · Post by **Dazzler** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:51 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:What the **** is wrong with you people?

I've asked that question myself when I hear of beheadings,people being chucked off high rise buldings,planes smashing into buildings,muslims at war with muslims….need I go on?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:51 am

atlantalad wrote:I have no inclination to read through the last few pages of IT spats to see if anyone has proposed a solution. But may I suggest one logical outcome that does not infringe international law.

Surely, if say a foreign national committed some heinous act against the public in UK, during their stay in the UK, then we would have every right to hold them and put them on trial in the UK for the crimes they committed and pass appropriate sentences. We would not repatriate the criminal back to their country of origin for them to dealt with by their judicial system.

Likewise then, this woman has entered Syria - without authority, and is presumed to have committed crimes against the Syrian state - she should therefore be tried in Syria for the crimes she may have committed and accordingly suffer the punishments set by the Syrians.
" When in Rome ...... "

1. She probably committed crimes in this country, should they just be ignored?

2. What crimes has she committed in Syria? For us to extradite someone to another country there has to be evidence that their accusation hold merit.

3. We also don't extradite people to countries where the death penalty exists unless we get guarantees that the death penalty will not be sought.

So that's three different ways your argument falls down. Pick your favourite.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:53 am

"The Manchester bombing was fair retaliation" Yep, really, really remorseful.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:47 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:1. She probably committed crimes in this country, should they just be ignored?

2. What crimes has she committed in Syria? For us to extradite someone to another country there has to be evidence that their accusation hold merit.

3. We also don't extradite people to countries where the death penalty exists unless we get guarantees that the death penalty will not be sought.

So that's three different ways your argument falls down. Pick your favourite.

We don't need to extradite anyone, she's already in Syria, in a refugee camp.

Syrian authorities could just arrest her over there and get on with the business of putting her through their legal system.
So that's 3 sorted out and most of 2 to a degree.

As for 1, she was 15 and spent her time watching Isis propaganda videos online, she's freely admitted it, but she'd have to be charged and tried as a child because that's what she was at the time, if it's an offense to watch those things.
I don't know if we have a law that covers someone joining a terrorist organisation, because we've never used it on the Irish last I checked.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:24 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:We don't need to extradite anyone, she's already in Syria, in a refugee camp.

Syrian authorities could just arrest her over there and get on with the business of putting her through their legal system.
So that's 3 sorted out and most of 2 to a degree.

As for 1, she was 15 and spent her time watching Isis propaganda videos online, she's freely admitted it, but she'd have to be charged and tried as a child because that's what she was at the time, if it's an offense to watch those things.
I don't know if we have a law that covers someone joining a terrorist organisation, because we've never used it on the Irish last I checked.

I'm fully aware that we don't need to extradite anyone. But i was arguing against someone's opinion that seemed to assume we did, and instead of copping out i chose to actually argue against the point on the spirit of their argument, not a technicality.

The argument was that we would allow the extradition of someone to another country if they had committed crimes in that country, therefore why would we accept this woman back when she has committed crimes in Syria. I pointed out that she hasn't been accused of any crimes over there. And if she was here then we'd only extradite after seeing the evidence, and receiving assurances.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:28 am

Give her the choice.

Let her come back on the understanding if she is found guilty of what everyone is saying (apart from 1 person and her family) then she goes to prison for life and her child goes into care. the kid can't possibly be safe with her parents who managed to ignore a victim being brainwashed under their roof so gets raised by some decent family. Or she can stay where she is with her child.

The cost of keeping her in prison can be kept down by leaving her in a cell and feeding her 3 times a day, and before turtle starts flapping about this being a skin colour issue, I would also give the same sentence to any sex offender/ rapist of any colour as well as any terrorist or terrorist sympathiser of any colour.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:30 am

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Give her the choice.

Let her come back on the understanding if she is found guilty of what everyone is saying (apart from 1 person and her family) then she goes to prison for life and her child goes into care. the kid can't possibly be safe with her parents who managed to ignore a victim being brainwashed under their roof so gets raised by some decent family. Or she can stay where she is with her child.

The cost of keeping her in prison can be kept down by leaving her in a cell and feeding her 3 times a day, and before turtle starts flapping about this being a skin colour issue, I would also give the same sentence to any sex offender/ rapist of any colour as well as any terrorist or terrorist sympathiser of any colour.

What has she done to deserve life in prison?

atlantalad · Post by **atlantalad** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:48 pm

1. She probably committed crimes in this country, should they just be ignored?

2. What crimes has she committed in Syria? For us to extradite someone to another country there has to be evidence that their accusation hold merit.

3. We also don't extradite people to countries where the death penalty exists unless we get guarantees that the death penalty will not be sought.

So that's three different ways your argument falls down. Pick your favourite.

Point 1. This is irrelevant and nonsense. It's like saying if a foreign national committed a heinous crime in this country but say had committed a crime ( say stealing a tin of beans from a shop) in their country of citizenship prior to arriving in the UK then the UK is obliged to repatriate them to face the latter charges in their citizenship country.

Point 2. In the context of point 1 and, as already pointed by GodisaDeeJay, I never advocated extraditing her - she is already in Syria so she can remain there and be subjected to the Syrian judicial system, however good or bad that may be - something she should have considered before entering Syria.

Point 3. If while in Syria she has committed crimes then she should face whatever sentence is deemed appropriate by that country, even if it is a death sentence. Here precedents have been set - UK prisoners on death row in the USA. btw we did not extradite these - they committed offences while in the USA.

As I say " When in Rome ..... " When visiting foreign countries I am aware they have different cultural as well as legal standards and I respect those and if I contravene them I would expect appropriate sentences and not expect my pleas of ignorance to be considered ( because I am just simple UK citizen, and our laws are more civilised laws [sic] ) if I violate their expected standards/laws .

bob-the-scutter · Post by **bob-the-scutter** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:30 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I wasn't aware she committed terrorism. I thought all she'd done was become a member of a banned terrorist organisation.
What acts of terror did she commit? Did she kill anyone? Did she harm anyone?

This is why i asked you my original question, because you clearly had strong feelings about her sentence so i, perhaps mistakenly, assumed that you had a clue about what it was you were so angry about.

Yet again lacking the intelligence to understand a simple point!

DustyBawls · Post by **DustyBawls** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:37 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:What has she done to deserve life in prison?

Gone abroad with the intention of causing harm on the United Kingdom. I hope your next question isn't, "How do you know?" - because that opens up a can of worms and we both know that's why she went to join ISIS.

You've been on about vaccinations and pretending to care about children. Well, she'd be one of those people that walk past your child and blows themself up.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:48 pm

DustyBawls wrote:Gone abroad with the intention of causing harm on the United Kingdom. I hope your next question isn't, "How do you know?" - because that opens up a can of worms and we both know that's why she went to join ISIS.

You've been on about vaccinations and pretending to care about children. Well, she'd be one of those people that walk past your child and blows themself up.

He doesn't care, it is just part of his fake online persona.

Bit like after the plane crash that saw the players of Chapocense lose their lives he mentioned how much they would save on their wage bill.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:49 pm

DustyBawls wrote:Gone abroad with the intention of causing harm on the United Kingdom. I hope your next question isn't, "How do you know?" - because that opens up a can of worms and we both know that's why she went to join ISIS.

You've been on about vaccinations and pretending to care about children. Well, she'd be one of those people that walk past your child and blows themself up.

So she joined a banned terrorist organisation. That's all we know she's done. Right? I mean, has she actually DONE anything beyond joining ISIS? Or are we giving life sentences to everyone who's ever been a member of a banned terrorist organisation now?

I don't think you really understand what it is you're advocating for if you think that the government should imprison someone for life when all we have evidence of them doing is joining an organisation that's banned. You seem to be going way, way overboard with your hatred.

As for "pretending to care about children". Look at you with the personal attacks. Can't make an argument on merit so you accuse me of being disingenuous when i want children to not die. Maybe that's something you suffer from, but not everyone is like you. I do care about kids. And adults. And I care about them growing up in a country where we don't punish someone with a life sentence for a crime that we have no evidence has actually harmed anyone. I want future generations to grow up in a free country that doesn't treat punish someone differently just because they hate us or are less likeable than others.

Why do I want that? Because I value my freedoms more than you value yours, it seems. Or at least if you do value freedom, you're completely ignorant about the ways that freedoms can and are being chipped away at. Not only that but what you want just so happens to be what ISIS wants us to do, so maybe we should start a conversation about how much we punish ISIS collaborators. What do you say, life in prison?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:51 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:He doesn't care, it is just part of his fake online persona.

Bit like after the plane crash that saw the players of Chapocense lose their lives he mentioned how much they would save on their wage bill.

Yeah, because making a dark joke about a tragedy makes me a bad person.

And there's nothing fake about my online persona. Is that really what you're resorting to now? You can't challenge me on the merits of your own arguments so you have to come out with these personal attacks?

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:04 pm

For someone who lives his life outraged and offended, seems a bit odd you make fun of people losing their lives in a plane crash.

Each to their own though, not sure how it is a personal attack when it is the truth and you admit it but there you go.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:08 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:For someone who lives his life outraged and offended, seems a bit odd you make fun of people losing their lives in a plane crash.

Each to their own though, not sure how it is a personal attack when it is the truth and you admit it but there you go.

Perhaps you're just wrong about me being outraged and offended? When have i ever been either?
I'm curious to know what you think is "outraged" or "offended" so please, post an example.

Edit: and yes, accusing someone of presenting a fake personality online is quite a personal attack when you're wrong. But i think that's what you were going for, wasn't it? It's nothing but an attempt as a personal smear. They're allowed on here btw, but if i tell you to go **** yourself, which is my usual response to someone posting a personal attack like yours, i'll be the one to get banned. So credit to you for doing it the way you do.

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:42 pm

Looks like she has been stripped of her British citezeanship.

It’s about time that our govt. grew a pair of cojones.

Murger · Post by **Murger** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:45 pm

Right_winger wrote:Looks like she has been stripped of her British citezeanship.

It’s about time that our govt. grew a pair of cojones.

Sauce?

bobinho · Post by **bobinho** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:46 pm

ITV news

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:49 pm

Has she actually killed anyone?
Just wondering after watching Chelsea last night, seems OK for millionaires to take lives.

Murger · Post by **Murger** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:51 pm

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:52 pm

Right_winger wrote:Looks like she has been stripped of her British citezeanship.

It’s about time that our govt. grew a pair of cojones.

Rest in pieces the British justice system.

Yet another thing i'll get to be smug about as the government gets to punish more and more people without a trial.

Murger · Post by **Murger** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:53 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Rest in pieces the British justice system.

Yet another thing i'll get to be smug about as the government gets to punish more and more people without a trial.

If you're that bothered, why don't you fund her appeal.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:54 pm

Murger wrote:If you're that bothered, why don't you fund her appeal.

I don't care about her.

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:56 pm

Good news

Murger · Post by **Murger** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:58 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I don't care about her.

Im sure the government will have discussed it with their own lawyers. She deserves all she gets.

karatekid · Post by **karatekid** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:58 pm

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-02-19/sha ... ws-learns/

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:01 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Rest in pieces the British justice system.

Yet another thing i'll get to be smug about as the government gets to punish more and more people without a trial.

Why? She’s a terrorist and has left willingly to join a terrorist organisation. She’s also just given birth to another potential terrorist, the other 2 have died.

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:01 pm

Just been on Look Northwest the family of Begum have been written to by the Government ... saying they are seriously considering revoking her citizenship (possibly due to recent interviews and her views on the Manchester arena bombing etc etc) With a bit of luck they will leave her where she is.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:02 pm

Right_winger wrote:Looks like she has been stripped of her British citezeanship.

It’s about time that our govt. grew a pair of cojones.

That means she had dual nationality in the first place, which allows our government to do this.

So she's now someone else's problem.
What about her kid though ....

Aclaret · Post by **Aclaret** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:04 pm

Well that's one in the eye for the do gooders on this board and elsewhere !!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:04 pm

"She’s also just given birth to another potential terrorist"

I mean. They're certainly getting more bold with expressing their beliefs.

Right_winger wrote:Why? She’s a terrorist and has left willingly to join a terrorist organisation. She’s also just given birth to another potential terrorist, the other 2 have died.

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:12 pm

Best result.She is stuck in an Islamic country so it's win win. She has a cracking track record at dropping her drawers for terrorists so she can marry again in what 3 weeks or so to the nearest eligible bachelor or widower with a Kalashnikov.

willsclarets · Post by **willsclarets** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:14 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:So she joined a banned terrorist organisation. That's all we know she's done. Right? I mean, has she actually DONE anything beyond joining ISIS? Or are we giving life sentences to everyone who's ever been a member of a banned terrorist organisation now?

I don't think you really understand what it is you're advocating for if you think that the government should imprison someone for life when all we have evidence of them doing is joining an organisation that's banned. You seem to be going way, way overboard with your hatred.

As for "pretending to care about children". Look at you with the personal attacks. Can't make an argument on merit so you accuse me of being disingenuous when i want children to not die. Maybe that's something you suffer from, but not everyone is like you. I do care about kids. And adults. And I care about them growing up in a country where we don't punish someone with a life sentence for a crime that we have no evidence has actually harmed anyone. I want future generations to grow up in a free country that doesn't treat punish someone differently just because they hate us or are less likeable than others.

Why do I want that? Because I value my freedoms more than you value yours, it seems. Or at least if you do value freedom, you're completely ignorant about the ways that freedoms can and are being chipped away at. Not only that but what you want just so happens to be what ISIS wants us to do, so maybe we should start a conversation about how much we punish ISIS collaborators. What do you say, life in prison?

Our freedoms are part of a liberal democracy she has no interest in contributing to. Not for a minute do I agree she's given birth to "another terrorist" or that she should be locked up. But you have to draw the line somewhere, in terms of admitting people to live amongst us who are proven through rhetoric or action, to fundamentally oppose the ideology that allows us our freedoms.

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:16 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:"She’s also just given birth to another potential terrorist"

I mean. They're certainly getting more bold with expressing their beliefs.

Considering who it’s parents are, and the influence it’s parents are going to have over it there’s a very good chance it will end up fighting against the civilised world.

You know the meaning of its name don’t you? Jerah “the one who wounds”

brigante · Post by **brigante** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:21 pm

One of our own
One of our own
Shimima Begum
She’s one of our...oh

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:21 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:"She’s also just given birth to another potential terrorist"

I mean. They're certainly getting more bold with expressing their beliefs.

Who's They're?

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:22 pm

I'm liking the cut of Sajid Javid's jib !

LeadBelly · Post by **LeadBelly** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:23 pm

I'd guess that they've discovered she has dual nationality, her family are Bangladeshis I believe.
Previously, Sajid Javid has said "The powers available to me include banning non-British people from this country and stripping dangerous dual nationals of their British citizenship. Over 100 people have already been deprived in this way."

It may serve "Pour décourager les autres " as well. Not returning to UK, not a dead martyr and consigned to the refuge camp or Bangladesh is a good solution all round I think.

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:23 pm

The irony of the family solicitor no doubt on legal aid saying that will explore all legal actions to get her back to the UK. A woman who's idea of justice is guilty as charged to be stonned beheaded beaten raped bludgeoned burnt.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:25 pm

willsclarets wrote:Our freedoms are part of a liberal democracy she has no interest in contributing to. Not for a minute do I agree she's given birth to "another terrorist" or that she should be locked up. But you have to draw the line somewhere, in terms of admitting people to live amongst us who are proven through rhetoric or action, to fundamentally oppose the ideology that allows us our freedoms.

Under what system of justice has it been proven though? That's my point. If some people don't have the right to a trial just because of their beliefs then none of us have a right to a fair trial anymore. Or we don't have the freedom to believe whatever dumb **** we want.

Where do we draw the line at what is and isn't an acceptable belief?

I think you're wrong. We don't have to draw a line anywhere, and we hurt our liberal democracy when we start to base a persons right to a trial on what they believe.