Stayingup wrote:Absolute rubbish. How can you say that? Its a ludictous assertion and only someone your age would come up with that.
Presume you know about penalties crimes in muslim countries. Not related to the topic but THINK!!!
GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I haven't said she's committed crimes here have I?
She's entered another country and joined an active terrorist organisation, which committed atrocities that she was complicit in.
It's not down to the UK to put her in the dock for those crimes.
The home office have considered her far too dangerous to reside in the UK, she'd represent too much of a security risk & in addition nobody has any idea how far she as been radicalised whilst in Syria.Imploding Turtle wrote:So now, according to you, it's OK to punish someone without a trial for committing crimes against another country. You opinion is getting more and more extreme.
The bar for this his punishment without trial idea is getting lower and lower.
Maybe she should have just been responsible for 39 deaths in a lorry instead. Apparently that's a less serious crime that running off to marry a muslim extremist while still a child, since at least then we'd want to put her on trial.
How do you know that what the home office has said is true?Jakubclaret wrote:The home office have considered her far too dangerous to reside in the UK, she'd represent too much of a security risk & in addition nobody has any idea how far she as been radicalised whilst in Syria.
Taking in consideration what she's done & stripping her citizenship - call it a educated hunch.Imploding Turtle wrote:How do you know that what the home office has said is true?
It’s only natural for some people to initially think this, without fully doing some research into her parents & her upbringing it’s impossible to say, but it’s a possibility it could be a factor.Stayingup wrote:Her parents must share some blame somewhere along the line for this tragedy.
Jakubclaret wrote:Taking in consideration what she's done & stripping her citizenship - call it a educated hunch.
It’s about protecting the citizens, if she comes back there’s no guarantee she’ll be no trouble, I’d rather our government played safe with this 1, I want the government to ensure security & the increased likelihood of no possible danger, inviting people back into the country when there left to join terrorist organisations isn’t a sensible course of action.Imploding Turtle wrote:Nothing about your opinion is educated. It's like you are completely ignorant of what happens when a government is allowed to punish people without having to prove that they deserve it.
OR
You know exactly what happens when governments are allowed to punish people without having to prove that they deserve it, and you actually want the government to have that power.
Which is it?
You're a fool. You'd selling the freedom of the people of this country for a tiny little bit of extra security. There's literally nothing stopping the government from fabricating evidence against someone troublesome for them (like an XR protester) and waiting until they go on holiday to strip them of citizenship because people like you have allowed the government to do that. They can just make up the reason for stripping it and because of people like you there's no way to stop them. You're such a ******* fool.Jakubclaret wrote:It’s about protecting the citizens, if she comes back there’s no guarantee she’ll be no trouble, I’d rather our government played safe with this 1, I want the government to ensure security & the increased likelihood of no possible danger, inviting people back into the country when there left to join terrorist organisations isn’t a sensible course of action.
Your renegade cavalier attitude towards our internal domestic security is quite concerning.Imploding Turtle wrote:So now, according to you, it's OK to punish someone without a trial for committing crimes against another country. You opinion is getting more and more extreme.
The bar for this his punishment without trial idea is getting lower and lower.
Maybe she should have just been responsible for 39 deaths in a lorry instead. Apparently that's a less serious crime that running off to marry a muslim extremist while still a child, since at least then we'd want to put her on trial.
your fear of populist fearmongering and teenage girls is far more concerning to me.Jakubclaret wrote:Your renegade cavalier attitude towards our internal domestic security is quite concerning.
We don’t know the connections she’s encountered or how radicalised she’s become whilst in Syria.yTib wrote:your fear of populist fearmongering and teenage girls is far more concerning to me.
if you genuinely fear that girl you are pathetic. but you don't because no rational person would.
no we don't.Jakubclaret wrote:We don’t know the connections she’s encountered or how radicalised she’s become whilst in Syria.
Wanting to let our courts deal with a criminal is not a "renegade cavalier attitude". People like you are a fascists' wet dream. It's people like you who will destroy this country and its freedoms, and that's why you're more dangerous to our freedoms than any ISIS bride could ever be.Jakubclaret wrote:Your renegade cavalier attitude towards our internal domestic security is quite concerning.
Nonsense, I'm a law abiding citizen squeaky clean never even had as much as a parking ticket in my life, no convictions whatsoever, how you can determine I'm more dangerous than a woman who has left this country to join a backward barbaric murderous terrorist organisation is preposterous.Imploding Turtle wrote:Wanting to let our courts deal with a criminal is not a "renegade cavalier attitude". People like you are a fascists' wet dream. It's people like you who will destroy this country and its freedoms, and that's why you're more dangerous to our freedoms than any ISIS bride could ever be.
Because this country is more than just people, it's a set of ideas and begum can't do **** to those ideas, but people like you working from the inside to bring down our legal system? That's what can destroy this country, destroy its justice system and destroy its democracy.Jakubclaret wrote:Nonsense, I'm a law abiding citizen squeaky clean never even had as much as a parking ticket in my life, no convictions whatsoever, how you can determine I'm more dangerous than a woman who has left this country to join a backward barbaric murderous terrorist organisation is preposterous.
I know you feel passionate about this particular situation involving this girl, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but honestly it's just not a good idea to bring her back to let her roam the streets, ideally she needs to stay where she is & face justice in the country where she is now. The day she left in my view she ceased to become our problem. If she did come back the security measures we'd have to implement for her own safety as well as ours would restrict her freedom to the extent she'd be a virtual prisoner in the UK anyway.Imploding Turtle wrote:Because this country is more than just people, it's a set of ideas and begum can't do **** to those ideas, but people like you working from the inside to bring down our legal system? That's what can destroy this country, destroy its justice system and destroy its democracy.
When a suicide bomber blows themselves up, they do it to kill people they hate, but the people who send them to blow themselves up do that to create people like you. Basically you're just an ISIS recruit. There's a term for you. I can't call you it without risking a ban, so i'll link you to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
She wouldn't be a virtual prisoner, she'd be an actual prisoner.Jakubclaret wrote:I know you feel passionate about this particular situation involving this girl, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but honestly it's just not a good idea to bring her back to let her roam the streets, ideally she needs to stay where she is & face justice in the country where she is now. The day she left in my view she ceased to become our problem. If she did come back the security measures we'd have to implement for her own safety as well as ours would restrict her freedom to the extent she'd be a virtual prisoner in the UK anyway.
Well yes realistically, you’d be looking at the full works, new identity, changing her appearance etc to even enjoy a basic level of freedom.Tall Paul wrote:She wouldn't be a virtual prisoner, she'd be an actual prisoner.
What? She'd be put on trial, found guilty and locked up in an actual prison.Jakubclaret wrote:Well yes realistically, you’d be looking at the full works, new identity, changing her appearance etc to even enjoy a basic level of freedom.
Slow down, you are moving far too fast, you have to extradite & go through the trial first, potentially massive issues with public opposition.Tall Paul wrote:What? She'd be put on trial, found guilty and locked up in an actual prison.
Who's name calling?Firthy wrote:I don't give a **** about Begum, she made her bed let her lie in it, but I do find it sad that some people on this forum can't disagree with other posters opinions without name calling and having a pop at each other. Come on people let's show each other a bit of respect and keep the discussions about the topic and not each other.
This is a bigger issue than one girl. The Home Office has overseen a sharp rise in people having their citizenship taken away, and recently not all of them have been deemed a threat. This is arbitrary power, so strict guidelines should be set up as reasons for banishing someone, and the Home Secretary should have to apply to a court, so give the person the right to be represented. This should all be transparent.Jakubclaret wrote:I know you feel passionate about this particular situation involving this girl, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but honestly it's just not a good idea to bring her back to let her roam the streets, ideally she needs to stay where she is & face justice in the country where she is now. The day she left in my view she ceased to become our problem. If she did come back the security measures we'd have to implement for her own safety as well as ours would restrict her freedom to the extent she'd be a virtual prisoner in the UK anyway.
I've just stated it's down to the country which she was in to put her in the dock for any crimes she may have committed.Imploding Turtle wrote:So now, according to you, it's OK to punish someone without a trial for committing crimes against another country. You opinion is getting more and more extreme.
The bar for this his punishment without trial idea is getting lower and lower.
Maybe she should have just been responsible for 39 deaths in a lorry instead. Apparently that's a less serious crime that running off to marry a muslim extremist while still a child, since at least then we'd want to put her on trial.
OK. So why can't she face trial here for the crimes she's committed against us? We've punished her already, so surely there was a crime committed.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I've just stated it's down to the country which she was in to put her in the dock for any crimes she may have committed.
Try reading what I've said...
What has she committed against us?Imploding Turtle wrote:OK. So why can't she face trial here for the crimes she's committed against us? We've punished her already, so surely there was a crime committed.
She has effectively already been tried and punished. She was found guilty and her citizenship revoked. I don't have a problem with it, saved a lot of time and taxpayers money.Imploding Turtle wrote:OK. So why can't she face trial here for the crimes she's committed against us? We've punished her already, so surely there was a crime committed.
So you're another one who likes kangaroo courts for people accused of certain crimes. Or maybe it's accused crimes of certain people. Either way it's a seriously anti-British, anti-western attitude. I trust you won't be wearing any poppies this year because clearly you don't give a **** about what the people you'd be "remembering" fought for.Firthy wrote:She has effectively already been tried and punished. She was found guilty and her citizenship revoked. I don't have a problem with it, saved a lot of time and taxpayers money.
When you say certain people....Imploding Turtle wrote:So you're another one who likes kangaroo courts for people accused of certain crimes. Or maybe it's accused crimes of certain people. Either way it's a seriously anti-British, anti-western attitude. I trust you won't be wearing any poppies this year because clearly you don't give a **** about what the people you'd be "remembering" fought for.
She's self confessed isnt she, or does she claim she was kidnapped and taken to Syria.Imploding Turtle wrote:So you're another one who likes kangaroo courts for people accused of certain crimes. Or maybe it's accused crimes of certain people. Either way it's a seriously anti-British, anti-western attitude. I trust you won't be wearing any poppies this year because clearly you don't give a **** about what the people you'd be "remembering" fought for.
I don't wear a poppy any year, so I'm not sure what your point is right now, unless you've lost the plot and you're having a tantrum.Imploding Turtle wrote:So you're another one who likes kangaroo courts for people accused of certain crimes. Or maybe it's accused crimes of certain people. Either way it's a seriously anti-British, anti-western attitude. I trust you won't be wearing any poppies this year because clearly you don't give a **** about what the people you'd be "remembering" fought for.
She hasn't confessed under caution. And even if she had she'd still deserve a trial just like anyone else who confesses to crimes.Colburn_Claret wrote:She's self confessed isnt she, or does she claim she was kidnapped and taken to Syria.
Are you Firthy and logged into the wrong account right now? Because i was pretty clearly replying to Firthy.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I don't wear a poppy any year, so I'm not sure what your point is right now, unless you've lost the plot and you're having a tantrum.
She can have her trial over there in the country where she's allegedly committed her crimes.Imploding Turtle wrote:She hasn't confessed under caution. And even if she had she'd still deserve a trial just like anyone else who confesses to crimes.
You guys clearly don't realise how serious it is when the government of a country is allowed to just forego giving people a trial.
"We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law." Edward R. Murrow
Nope, just saying I don't wear poppies in reply to your bizarre comment about someone wearing a poppy or not.Imploding Turtle wrote:Are you Firthy and logged into the wrong account right now? Because i was pretty clearly replying to Firthy.
So you're saying she hasn't committed any crimes here? So why are we punishing her?GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:She can have her trial over there in the country where she's allegedly committed her crimes.
It doesn't need to be over here.
It wasn't a kangaroo court. She is self confessed and admitted her own guilt, she has not apologised or shown any remorse. When it didn't turn out as she expected she then wanted the British Government to bail her out. She is the one who doesn't give a **** about what our soldiers fought for.Imploding Turtle wrote:So you're another one who likes kangaroo courts for people accused of certain crimes. Or maybe it's accused crimes of certain people. Either way it's a seriously anti-British, anti-western attitude. I trust you won't be wearing any poppies this year because clearly you don't give a **** about what the people you'd be "remembering" fought for.
You know why.Imploding Turtle wrote:So you're saying she hasn't committed any crimes here? So why are we punishing her?
If you can’t see why people have concerns about the fact our government can declare you unwelcome to live here while you’re out of the country, and effectively banish you without judicial oversight, then perhaps you’d be more at home in North Korea?GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:You know why.
She left the UK to join an illegal terrorist organisation, which is known for committing atrocities.
She's been deemed a risk to the British public by the government.
If that's what the rules are then it's not my problem she's broken them and been thrown out.
I know you like to wring your hands over this sort of stuff, but you really need to take it up with your local MP.
So the trick is to not do something that could get your citizenship revoked.AndrewJB wrote:If you can’t see why people have concerns about the fact our government can declare you unwelcome to live here while you’re out of the country, and effectively banish you without judicial oversight, then perhaps you’d be more at home in North Korea?
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/shamima-beg ... ned-104386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - as it says on this link, the government added a new reason for stripping someone of citizenship in 2014. Behaviour “not conducive to the public good” is an easy catchall, that could allow my citizenship to be removed (for example). When you suggest this is improbable - I should point out the numbers have been rising year on year. Between 2006 and 2016 it was used 50 times. In 2017 it was used 104 times. We’ve seen this government’s attitude through the Windrush Scandal, so I can see this getting worse before it gets better.
We can see the concerns, we just don't agree with them. We agree with what the government has done.AndrewJB wrote:If you can’t see why people have concerns about the fact our government can declare you unwelcome to live here while you’re out of the country, and effectively banish you without judicial oversight, then perhaps you’d be more at home in North Korea?
Surprised it is possible to miss the point so badly.Firthy wrote:It wasn't a kangaroo court. She is self confessed and admitted her own guilt, she has not apologised or shown any remorse. When it didn't turn out as she expected she then wanted the British Government to bail her out. She is the one who doesn't give a **** about what our soldiers fought for.
And please don't accuse me of not caring about what our soldiers fought for, my father and grandfather both went to war at 18 and I'm extremely proud of the military medal for valor which is hanging on my wall.
She didn't go to preserve freedom in the western world, she went to a cause that hates everything about the western world.
Maybe you'd like to enlighten me then?Rileybobs wrote:Surprised it is possible to miss the point so badly.