AndrewJB wrote:Get rid of other undesirables? If someone is convicted here of sexual offences wouldn’t you want to honour the victims by punishing them here? This idea that people could just come here and commit those kinds of offences, and then get sent home If they’re caught Is crazy.

The power the government has is to strip someone of their U.K. citizenship, rendering them banished, and do so without a trial, without due process, and without even judicial oversight. This is disproportionate.

Going back to Windrush, this is thousands of people targeted for removal, and the process managed by a big private sector company (probably so the government could claim no knowledge), and all to get the government closer to spurious net migration targets. If they were willing to do that over targets, then how can you tell me they’ll use this power with the greatest restraint?

Jakubclaret wrote:In his position it would have been extremely foolhardy to have done things any differently.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm curious. If an XR protestor is found to have child porn on their phone, or computer, how will you know that they're really guilty?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Jesus christ.

You are literally arguing in favour of accusation of a crime being equal to a conviction.

Bordeauxclaret wrote:I think you might be getting nationality mixed up with twitter account there.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:The sex gangs are being convicted and sent to prison.

Upon release some of them can have their British citizenship stripped away and returned to the country that they also have citizenship with.
Ergo they've been punished here for their crimes and binned off to another country, job done, you should be happy with that one yes?
The fact that you don't think people come here to live and then commit those sorts of crimes says volumes about you.

As for Windrush they were failed by successive governments in regards to their status being secure.

Imploding Turtle wrote:So now we're deliberately discriminating *against* British citizens by giving them additional punishments?

That's an interesting development.

But only if those British citizens are also foreigners, of course.

Do you see how this has quickly become a policy that treats immigrant Britons differently to non-immigrant Britons? Two British citizens, guilty of the exact same crime, but one of them has a more severe sentence because he's an immigrant.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:It discriminates against people who commit crimes like child abuse and means that they can be removed from the country after they been punished by the UK courts.

The fact you're arguing against this being done shows that you're not bothered about the rights of the victims in these instances.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Here we go again. It's all about how i only care about paedophiles and terrorists. But if i tell you to go **** yourself because *that* would be offensive.


You've refused to address my point. Why are you in favour of the government enacting a patently racist policy of giving immigrant British citizens more severe sentences than non-immigrant British citizens for the same crime?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Round of applause for the smart arse, one day you'll actually be funny.

Nope, I can actually hold dual nationality if I so wish, which entitles me to wander around the EU however I like, including living and working over there.

mdd2 wrote:Reductio ad absurdum me thinks IT
You will be arguing soon that any foreign criminal here should be allowed UK citizenship.

Imploding Turtle wrote:These two sentences together.


Make a blatantly reductio ad absurdum argument in the very next ******* sentence. Like a ******* genius would.

mdd2 wrote:Very good IT after almost 12 hours and removal of your previous bilious retort you seem to have understood.

aggi wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:39 am

I see that she's lost her first appeal against overturning the decision to strip her of UK citizenship.

(As an aside, it's strange how many posters think a 15 year old girl is mature enough to decide to join ISIS but a 16 year old boy isn't mature enough to decide to text a politician.)

Funkydrummer wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:44 am

Yeah, what's all this "first appeal" nonsense all about ?

Does she just keep banging away, (no pun intended !) until the authorities give in or
is there a limit ?

aggi wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:39 am

I see that she's lost her first appeal against overturning the decision to strip her of UK citizenship.

(As an aside, it's strange how many posters think a 15 year old girl is mature enough to decide to join ISIS but a 16 year old boy isn't mature enough to decide to text a politician.)

Sproggy wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:30 pm

She probably wasn't when she was 15. But she's been 16, 17, 18 and 19 since then and had 3 babies to a Jihadist.

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:47 pm

People appealed for mercy as the London Bridge and Streatham knife maniacs stabbed them, they didnt get any either.

Sproggy wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:56 pm

She didn't want to.

You have obviously been through a lot over the last few years. Can you describe what it has been like to live with and under the Islamic State?
At first it was nice, it was like how they showed it in the videos, like 'come, make a family together'. Then afterwards, things got harder, you know. When we lost Raqqa we had to keep moving and moving and moving. The situation got difficult.

Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State?
Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end?
Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point?
No.

Sproggy wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:56 pm

She didn't want to.

You have obviously been through a lot over the last few years. Can you describe what it has been like to live with and under the Islamic State?
At first it was nice, it was like how they showed it in the videos, like 'come, make a family together'. Then afterwards, things got harder, you know. When we lost Raqqa we had to keep moving and moving and moving. The situation got difficult.

Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State?
Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end?
Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point?
No.

ClaretAndJew wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:25 pm

A fair point, but her initial mistake was made at 15, she then remained in the company she was in which would of course have an impact on what she did and how she viewed things.

She needs appropriate action taking against her but letting her go to Bangladesh where she will face the death penalty is not right.

elwaclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:01 pm

This is a fair defence... to a point. But please remember when she first appeared on the radar she was far from repentant.

LordBob wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:53 pm

So who pays for all of these appeals with the cost of anti terrorist forces costing £2.4 billion a year and Met police costs alone £8 million for interpreters where's it gonna end .

TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:05 pm

True, but at that point she was probably still very much under the influence of her radicalisation.

I don't know what the answer is but if she is treated like she probably deserves to be, there is a risk that she becomes a martyr and is used to radicalise others.

elwaclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:37 pm

Not being a smart arse, I don’t have an answer.... All I know is as a historian, the whole Isis thing has been a total bloody disaster. They have defiled the region they claimed to love. They have destroyed some of the most important historical monuments and investigation sites... because they were nothing but mentally warped.

That was all before it even blew up.... remember they just used to lop the heads off any poor sod going to try to help civilians. She was radicalised... before she went, she was radicalised in ways we can never imagine further, systematically over an number of years. Who decide’s when she can go home or we just put a number to it and see how we go on?

aggi wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:57 pm

I think there's different elements to consider though. I don't think many people have an issue with her coming back into the UK, being tried and the legal process being followed.

The issue is the unilateral revoking of her citizenship on a technicality without the decision of a court. We've basically gone "whatever, someone else can sort it out".

Maybe she has been brainwashed, going out as a 15 year old doesn't suggest it was a mature decision. On the other hand maybe she hasn't. We should at least, as a country, take responsibility for it though.

Blackrod wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:28 pm

Just to think the tax payer money that is being used to defend this sc*m could be used for the NHS, the ill, fighting crime, helping the elderly meanwhile Mr Furner and his firm are lining their pockets and living a life of relative luxury. I wonder if they would do the same if it was their family that had been beheaded. Somehow I doubt it.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:33 am

Im pretty sure if you was open to genuine discussion I could give you a hundred things tax payers money is wasted on ahead of providing everyone legal representative and a fair trial

If you want me to list you a few areas we waste far more millions than legal defence because it suits the Tory elite then just let me know

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:33 am

Im pretty sure if you was open to genuine discussion I could give you a hundred things tax payers money is wasted on ahead of providing everyone legal representative and a fair trial

If you want me to list you a few areas we waste far more millions than legal defence because it suits the Tory elite then just let me know

Blackrod wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:20 am

Too many would rather look for technicalities in the law to protect criminals than apply a common sense approach. We’ve also had some horrendous decisions and sentencing from judges lately and they are well rewarded to make these awful decisions. If there is a risk to the country and it’s people the Home Secretary should have the overriding power imo.

ClaretMoffitt wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:54 am

The bigots in here are performing their usual racist double standards. She was just a young girl, she is in danger. We need to do everything we can to protect her and give her a safe life. Perhaps if the Islamic extremists see how we accept her back, forgive her and offer her a bright future then maybe they won't hate us so much?

tiger76 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:10 pm

That sounds wonderful,however what happens if she's convicted and sentenced,eventually she'll be released,and as yet she has shown no remorse for any of her actions,we've seen in recent months the danger which radicalised individuals can pose on their release back into society.

I'd prefer if the UK government could somehow come to understanding with Bangladesh that if she was granted citizenship that she would be spared the death penalty,but this will require negotiations and a quid pro quo for the Bangladeshi's.

Blackrod wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:20 am

Too many would rather look for technicalities in the law to protect criminals than apply a common sense approach. We’ve also had some horrendous decisions and sentencing from judges lately and they are well rewarded to make these awful decisions. If there is a risk to the country and it’s people the Home Secretary should have the overriding power imo.