Imploding Turtle wrote:Have you even bothered to answer my question? Of course you haven't.
Are you aware that you are losing your rights to a fair trial? Are you OK with that?
We've been losing rights for years. We've lost the right to fly without a passport. We've lost the right to visit public places carrying rucksacks. We've lost the right to wear a cross in much of the middle east. We've lost the right to go the the front door of 10 Downing Street. And now we've lost the right to go and join in someone else's civil war and fight for everything that Britain stands against (or ought to).
There has never been, so far as I know, a judicial procedure akin to a trial for receiving a passport or not. However, one thing this woman has had is the opportunity to put her case in the public domain, and let us know just why she should be allowed in. She has put her case, and has let us know just why she should not be allowed in.
There are about 800 men and women who have fought for ISIL, who agree (like this woman) that in principle and in practice, planting bombs to kill children at a concert is a good thing. All 800 have been willing to risk death in that cause. And the question we're asking in this case isn't whether the law has been changed to keep them out; it's whether the law ought to be changed to make it easier to let them in. And the answer is obviously no.
Hard times make hard laws. There were plenty of innocents mixed up in the internment of Germans during WW2, and no doubt many mistakes were made in the way and scale that it was done; but it was effective. There was virtually no effective fifth column in the UK. We already have too many fifth columnists in the UK as it is; people who hold British passports but who want British people to die. There is no benefit to encouraging more.
These 2 users liked this post: box_of_frogs Vintage Claret
